Sitting of 12 April 1994

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

    Defence Equipment Testing
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what testing of British defence equipment is routinely carried out in other countries; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The vast majority of routine testing of British defence equipment is carried out within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ainger: The Minister will be aware of the concern expressed by many organisations, individuals, local authorities and trade unions about the outcome of the director general's review of test and evaluation. Does he agree that it would be wholly unacceptable if a significant part—or any part—of test and evaluation currently undertaken at establishments in Essex, Dyfed and west Scotland were transferred to another country in Europe or North America? Can he assure the House that, whatever the outcome of the review, it will not mean any of that work being undertaken anywhere other than in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Aitken: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern as the Member of Parliament whose constituency contains Pendine. In our quest for value for money, we are currently considering a number of options on the future of test and evaluation sites, although Ministers have reached no decision. On the information available to my Department, the transfer to an overseas location of facilities at Pendine or any other establishment does not appear to be cost-effective.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend made any estimate of the amount of defence equipment testing that would be undertaken in Wales and elsewhere if the defence budget were cut by 25 per cent., as some hon. Members advocate?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid political point. If Labour or Liberal Democrat conference resolutions were implemented, test and evaluation establishments throughout the country would have not nearly enough work to survive.
    Mr. Robertson: Will the Minister acknowledge that he has an unparalleled facility for testing and evaluating a wide range of weapons at the Royal Artillery range in the Hebrides? Will he ensure that the fullest possible use is made of those facilities by British companies and the British armed forces and encourage allied companies and armed forces also to take advantage of them?
    Mr. Aitken: I am glad to pay tribute to the equipment, facilities and personnel at the Royal Artillery range in the Hebrides. I visited Benbecula and St. Kilda last summer and am well aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. I am all in favour of the artillery range seeking business from overseas Governments and companies—which takes place to some extent already.

    Defence Equipment Exports
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of exports of defence equipment in 1993; and what was the percentage change on the previous year.
    Mr. Aitken: Our latest estimates show that in 1993 we signed defence equipment export contracts worth more than £6 billion. That represents an increase of more than 15 per cent. on the 1992 figure and makes 1993 another record-breaking year for Britain's defence exports.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Britain's defence equipment manufacturers on their success in achieving dramatically increased exports—particularly Paxman Diesels in Colchester, which is currently seeking diesel engine contracts from Kuwait and Abu Dhabi? Will my hon. Friend ensure that his excellent Department and the Defence Export Services Organisation in particular continue to provide the necessary support to British manufacturers, so that they may continue to achieve record exports?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Britain's defence manufacturers, who deserve to be congratulated on an outstandingly good success story in British exports. I am also glad to pay tribute to Paxman Diesels in his constituency, which is part of GEC Alsthom. We are aware that that company is currently hoping to win major export contracts in Kuwait and Abu Dhabi. My Department—and, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend and I—have given it every possible help in its battle for those orders.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: However remarkable and buoyant defence sales currently are, is not it clear that, over the next few years, there will be a contraction both in the domestic market and in many of our overseas markets, with major regional and employment effects? That will clearly be a major national problem. Do the Government intend to sit back, fold their arms and leave it to the market—or do they intend, like the United States Government, to set up a special agency designed to help in that period of transition and seek to diversify into civilian use wherever practicable?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in sounding a note of lugubrious pessimism even though I am announcing some very good news. That is typical socialism. The Government do not have the slightest intention of sitting back or ceasing in the battle to win export orders for British companies. We hope to continue with some measure of success. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the likelihood is that, both at home and abroad, there will be some contraction of orders, but the recipe for solving the problem is not, as he suggests, to create a new Government quango like the Defence Conversion Agency; indeed, he may care to note that the current United States Secretary of Defence was recorded as saying that so far the whole process of the Defence Conversion Agency was "unblemished by success."

    Defence Land Service
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been realised by the Defence Land Service from the sale of property in the last year for which figures are available.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): During the financial year 1992-93, which is the last full year for which figures are available, my Department realised some £68 million from the sale of land and buildings.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that the defence budget is to be held in actual terms over the next three years. Would it not be right to redeploy into the defence budget some of the capital receipts from sales of property so that we can have an increased defence budget to deal with inflationary increases? That would help to pay for front-line facilities for troops to deal with such threats as that displayed by the grizzly bear Zhirinovsky during his recent visit to Paris.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right that sales of surplus land and buildings can be very valuable within the defence budget—indeed, that is our policy. We are looking at the sale of land and buildings, again under the defence cost studies, and in due course will announce the results to the House. We greatly value those receipts. We look to sell surplus property whenever possible, and co-operate with local authorities in that, too.
    Mr. Tony Banks: So does the Minister have some sympathy with local authorities, which are sitting on some £5 billion-worth of accumulated capital receipts that the Government will not let them spend on services? While he is thinking of a miserable, pathetic, cringing answer to that question, may I also ask him how many vacant properties the Ministry of Defence currently holds that should be let to the homeless?
    Mr. Hanley: The Ministry of Defence currently owns about 70,000 domestic residences, of which approximately 10,000 are vacant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] The Opposition might prefer it if there were no homes to which our soldiers, sailors and airmen coming back from abroad could go. The Opposition might feel that the homes of service men do not deserve to be repaired or put into proper condition for letting and occupation. Perhaps they have been so long away from having to look after such property that they have lost all sense of reality.

    Frigate Building and Design
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time taken to design and build a modern frigate.
    Mr. Aitken: Once an affordable operational requirement has been agreed, it takes between eight and 12 years to design and build a modern frigate, depending on the complexity and development programmes of the weapon equipments to be fitted. Follow-on vessels to an existing design take some four years to build.
    Mr. Gill: Does not my hon. Friend's answer underline the fact that, to all intents and purposes, the only naval vessels that we shall have in any future conflict or war are those that are in the fleet at present?
    Mr. Aitken: No, that is not correct. There is, for example, a continuous rolling programme of vessel replacement and vessel building. There are currently 37 destroyers and frigates in the fleet, but three new type 23 frigates will be accepted into the Navy this year. Three are under construction and we hope to issue an invitation to tender for the next batch later this year. From that simple summary, my hon. Friend will realise that, in the event of hostilities breaking out, we should quickly be able to strengthen the number of ships available to the fleet.
    Mr. George: Is not it so long since the Royal Navy operated a large fleet that it has lost all touch with reality?
    Mr. Aitken: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a staunch supporter of defence, suddenly indulge in knocking copy. Although the Royal Navy has, of course, reduced the size of its fleet since the days of the cold war, it remains one of the most powerful and effective maritime forces in the world. The fleet consists of some 122 ships, including, as I said, 37 destroyers and frigates, 20 submarines, 18 minehunters and three aircraft carriers, and other ships are under construction, including the landing platform helicopter ship. From that simple record, it is quite clear that the Royal Navy has not lost touch with reality.
    Mr. Garnier: Can my hon. Friend tell me the equivalent time required by the Russian navy to build a modern frigate? Am I right in thinking that the Russians continue to build frigates and other front-line warships at an accelerating rate?
    Mr. Aitken: The Russian shipyards are, indeed, continuing to build warships and submarines such as the Kilo submarine, some of which are being exported to countries such as Iran. I am afraid that I am not an expert on the time taken by Russian shipyards, but if Russian labour practices are anything to go by, they are considerably slower and less efficient than our own commendable yards.

    Dogs
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on keeping dogs at Ministry of Defence establishments.
    Mr. Hanley: More than 2,000 service dogs are kept at Ministry of Defence establishments worldwide. They provide valuable and cost-effective security. In addition, there are some dogs privately owned and kept at personal expense; if they are kennelled at Ministry of Defence establishments, their owners are charged for the use of any Ministry of Defence property.
    Mr. Jamieson: Following his recent written answer to me, will the Minister confirm that the taxpayer is getting good value for money by subsidising dog kennels so that senior officers can go hunting during duty hours? In particular, will he confirm, following a written answer to me on 14 March, at column 520, that hunting with dogs promotes "good tactical… appreciation"? How can officers serving in the Navy use such tactical appreciation aboard Her Majesty's ships?
    Mr. Hanley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree; he clearly does not appreciate that the qualities expected in one force are usually expected
    6
    in all three and that military capability for a leading officer in the Royal Navy is just as great as that for such an officer in any of the forces. The forces share their expertise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who has pursued this issue quite vigorously recently, that hunting never interferes with any military commitments. It is a legal sport and, while it remains legal, the Ministry of Defence will co-operate with those who wish to undertake it.
    Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend will be aware that, immediately before Easter, a number of boxes of anti-personnel mines were lost from the testing station at Shoeburyness and washed up on the beaches of my constituency—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a very good trier, and the Minister may have a reply, but that question does not relate to that on the Order Paper. Let us hear about dogs being washed up.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend have any plans to employ sniffer dogs to ensure that that will not happen again? If not, what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. Hanley: There is no doubt that you, Madam Speaker, nearly smelt a rat on that one. My hon. Friend makes a good point because although the majority of dogs used by the Ministry of Defence are used for guarding, 355 are trained for specialist detection duties, which include arms and explosives searches, drugs detection and tracking. As to the event to which my hon. Friend referred, an urgent investigation is being carried out.

    Nuclear Proliferation
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the military implications of nuclear proliferation.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The Government attach a high priority to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the United Kingdom will continue to contribute positively towards international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.
    Mrs. Mahon: Which specific nuclear weapons have been dismantled and which are intended to be dismantled in the run-up to the renewal of the non-proliferation treaty?
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has indicated a very substantial reduction in its nuclear weapon capability. For example, we have got rid of all nuclear tactical weapons. We have said that we shall not go forward with the original proposals for a sub-strategic nuclear capability, which will in future be based on our Trident facilities. We have also indicated that our Trident nuclear weapons will have an explosive yield comparable to that of Polaris. The United Kingdom can hold its head high on the basis of making a positive contribution to the reduction of nuclear weapons in the world.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Has my right hon. and learned Friend recently made an assessment of the reports of the proliferation of nuclear weapons going from the ex-Soviet Union to Iran? The disturbing events in the Crimea also seem to be related to rumours that nuclear weapons may be being traded through to the middle east or even used

    7
    internally in the Ukraine. Those reports are disturbing at this sensitive moment and I should therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State could clarify the issue.
    Mr. Rifkind: There is no indication that either the Russian or the Ukraine Governments have been involved in any trading of that kind. With the very large number of weapons that exist in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, it is possible that certain materials may have been offered or transferred. We have no hard evidence to support that proposition, but the situation certainly needs to be carefully monitored.
    Mr. Llew Smith: While discussing the military implications of nuclear proliferation, will the Minister explain how the Government can support both the non-proliferation treaty and Trident?
    Mr. Rifkind: The existing non-proliferation treaty recognises the position of those countries that are currently nuclear weapon states. We are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, as are the United States and a number of other countries. We are all working together to ensure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons does not take place. In the real world, which may not be one with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, one has to take into account the historical fact that nuclear weapons currently exist.

    United States Air Force
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an assessment of the United States air force's air base operations and related services in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hanley: The United States air force in the United Kingdom currently operates airfields at the three main operating bases of RAF Mildenhall, RAF Lakenheath and RAF Alconbury, and the standby deployment base of RAF Fairford. However, flying will cease at RAF Alconbury by the end of March 1995.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that some 1,500 additional United States service personnel will be coming to RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath in my constituency during the course of the year? Is my hon. Friend aware of the extent to which my constituents welcome that, and of the fact that community relations in my constituency are considered to be the best in the world? Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the strong British-American link which for 50 years has served so well the cause of freedom and democracy?
    Mr. Hanley: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's comments. It is true that the number of active duty service members in the Mildenhall and Lakenheath area is expected to increase from just over 6,000 to almost 8,500 by April 1995. Although that presence is welcome, it naturally brings with it pressures, especially on housing, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the direct efforts that he has been making with the United States embassy and with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that adequate housing is provided in due time.

    Bosnia
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the ultimate withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: There are at present no plans to withdraw the British contingent. The timing of its ultimate withdrawal will depend on progress towards an overall peace agreement and developments on the ground.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and I am sure that we all look forward to the ultimate withdrawal of troops from the former Yugoslavia. In the meantime, and in the light of the events of the past 48 hours, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that British troops will not be drawn further into the conflict but will continue to remain dedicated to their impartial peacekeeping role in the former Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend says, it is, indeed, crucial that all United Nations forces recognise their non-partisan role. The recent decision of the UNPROFOR commander, General Rose, to ask for close air support was taken because of the threat faced by UN forces in Gorazde. It is also crucial that the existing mandate of UNPROFOR forces, including those from the United Kingdom, be sustained over the weeks and months to come.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will recall that when he recently announced the decision to send additional British troops to Bosnia, he also told the House of the successful diplomatic initiative at the United Nations which had resulted in promises of some 8,000 additional troops from other countries. Does he share the disappointment of many people that, because of the unwillingness of a number of United Nations members to meet their obligations to that organisation, the figure of 8,000 has had to be revised down to 3,500?
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has fully complied with its commitments, and additional British forces are of course now serving in Bosnia, as are forces from several other countries. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, however, several of the countries that expressed a willingness to send troops have not yet done so. We very much hope that they will meet their commitments in the earliest possible time frame, because the success of General Rose's efforts, like that of the United Nations effort in general, depends on his having the forces available to carry out the important task with which the UN has entrusted him.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State aware that when I led a small delegation of hon. Members from both sides of the House into Gorazde last September, we found only 11 UN soldiers guarding that 750 sq km enclave? The Opposition support the aerial intervention to protect the safe area, but does the Secretary of State share our belief that more ground troops are needed? Will he put pressure on our American allies to contribute some of those troops, and at the same time use his diplomatic skills to ensure that the Russians are not left out in the cold again?
    Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of UN personnel in Gorazde is not to protect the city; there is a very small number of UN personnel there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for the UN to have the forces that it requires.

    9
    The United States has said that it would be prepared to provide ground forces in the event of a peaceful settlement in Bosnia. I shall be in the United States over the next few days and I am sure that I shall discuss these matters with my American colleagues.

    Housing
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities about the transfer of Ministry of Defence housing.
    Mr. Hanley: My Department has had discussions with local authorities on the leasing of properties that are not immediately needed for service families or that are awaiting sale.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister share the view of his ministerial predecessor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), that it was rather a waste of time talking to local authorities, because they did not have the money to pay for the married quarters that they might wish to possess? Given that one in seven Ministry of Defence houses is vacant, and that the total is therefore far greater than the number needed for any returning service personnel, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be sensible for the two Departments to get together? Would not it be sensible for the Department of the Environment to ensure that capital receipts are available for local authorities to spend on married quarters so that they can purchase houses that the MOD wishes to sell and which the local authorities would like to possess?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman made several points, and I have sympathy with many of them. The Ministry of Defence is managing its housing estate. I said earlier that there are about 70,000 married quarters, of which about 10,000 are vacant. However, it should be remembered that most vacant properties are undergoing major works, many are being held for deployments, and many are already allocated to service families but have yet to be occupied. We have also been co-operating with the housing task force and trying to sell as many vacant properties as possible. We sold 2,000 vacant properties last year alone, and we intend to sell a further 5,000 over the next five years. We enter into discussion with local councils not only because we like to take their advice on what housing associations might be useful but because many of them are leasing properties from us on a short-term basis.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local authority in Gosport, which I represent, has found the Ministry of Defence to be helpful and imaginative in its housing policy, as best exemplified perhaps by the recent Rowner Heights development? Does he agree that the transfer of MOD housing stock to the private sector should result in more efficient management and a reduction in the level of vacancy, which has so annoyed my constituents over the years?
    Mr. Hanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that in Gosport there has been a model of co-operation between the local authority and the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, returning service men are being housed properly. As for the housing trust to which my hon. Friend alludes, that has been welcomed by the housing task force and the report recently published by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and
    10
    Construction. Indeed, we look forward to the establishment of the housing trust so that the estate of MOD housing can be even better managed.
    Dr. David Clark: Bearing in mind that the cost of an average house in the United Kingdom is £62,500, does the Minister consider that the price of £7,000 per house which he intends to offer the Ministry's housing to the housing trust is a fair deal to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Hanley: I do not honestly believe that, when one is looking at the number of houses that we are talking about, and the people for whom the houses will be held, the hon. Gentleman is making a straight comparison. What he is doing is trying to deal with the 70,000 houses as though there was a bulk sale and exaggerating the price. It is a bulk sale, but it is for the benefit of people in the armed forces.

    Royal Auxiliary Air Force
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in augmenting the strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to compensate for cuts in the front line of the Royal Air Force imposed under "Options for Change".
    Mr. Hanley: The strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has increased from 262 in April 1979 to some 1,700 now. We keep the numbers under regular review. For instance, the reduction in the threat to United Kingdom home bases means that we will no longer require the four Royal Auxiliary Air Force defence flights formed to protect key points, but Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel are now being given the opportunity to operate as an integral element of two regular RAF Regiment Rapier squadrons. We also intend to undertake trials of reservist aircrew for the first time on Hercules and Wessex aircraft.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the decision was taken under the "Options for Change" review, the air defence element of the Royal Air Force has reduced by some 30 per cent. and the strike attack element by some 40 per cent., and therefore the Royal Air Force is smaller but, effectively, weaker? As a consequence, could he increase significantly the reserve element by the creation of flying squadrons, as is so effectively done in the United States, Israeli and Swiss air forces?
    Mr. Hanley: The answer to my hon. Friend's last point is that we will certainly look at that because there is a future for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I mentioned that the number had increased from 262 to some 1,700. Even before the removal of the four flights, that will still be an increase of up to 1,300 with possibly more increases to come. As for the RAF Regular Reserve, the number was 3,250 in 1979 and it is some 17,500 now.
    Mr. Martlew: Is it not correct that in "Options for Change", the plan was to increase the number to 2,000? The Minister has announced that it is only 1,700 at present, so in fact there has been a reduction of 300. That is another idea of the Government's lack of clarity towards their armed forces. In 1983, it was announced that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and part of the Royal Air Force Voluntary Reserve would be amalgamated. There is a problem with that; to carry that out, we need primary legislation. Can the Minister guarantee that we will deal

    11
    with the Reserve Forces Bill next year in the House? Will that Bill include clauses that will allow the amalgamation to take place?
    Mr. Hanley: As I have said—and the hon. Gentleman clearly heard me—we keep the numbers of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force under review. That means that occasionally there will be reductions if threats change, and there will be increases when new roles can be found. As for the Reserve Forces Act 1980, what the hon. Gentleman said is exactly the intention of the Ministry of Defence—to enact a change in the legislation next year.
    Mr. Mans: In relation to the Royal Air Force Reserve, will my hon. Friend have discussions with his opposite number at the Home Office before any decisions are taken over the air cadet movement because of the great social good that that movement does in terms of providing useful occupations for youths and preventing them from going down the wrong road towards crime?
    Mr. Hanley: Naturally, I agree that many benefits flow from joining up with the Territorial Army, or the reserves. Those to which my hon. Friend has pointed are just some of them. The defence of the realm must primarily take account of the needs of the kingdom to be defended. This is not a purely social service, but there are certainly social service benefits. Indeed, many benefits flow from military discipline.

    Bosnia
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of United Kingdom forces required in Bosnia and the subsequent impact on other theatres of operation.
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom currently has some 3,300 service men on the ground in the former Yugoslavia, with a further 3,000 deployed offshore and in Italy. Our contribution naturally takes into account our operational commitments elsewhere.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, can he assure the House that, with the overstretch in the emergency plot and the planned reductions, the United Kingdom will have sufficient forces in the years ahead to undertake its rightful peacekeeping role, maintain its presence in Northern Ireland and, at the same time, make provision for engagement in collective brigade and Army training?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is our intention to meet all those commitments. Our plans envisage that the emergency tour interval will meet the target of some 24 months by the end of the draw-down period. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our commitment to Northern Ireland will be of the highest priority. We believe that the first obligation of our armed forces is the protection of the territory of the United Kingdom wherever a legitimate contribution can be made to that end.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that while we must indeed undertake our own role in overseas operations, this must not be done at the expense of operations in Northern Ireland? In particular, does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that there is a serious shortage of helicopter flying hours for
    12
    surveillance purposes? Surely it is essential that we demonstrate that we are absolutely resolute in countering terrorism in the Province.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, but she should take into account the fact that there has been a massive increase in helicopter activity in Northern Ireland. Helicopters have been found to be a most valuable means of meeting our security commitments, and there has quite properly been a major deployment of helicopter assets in the Province. We shall continue to try to ensure that the availability of those assets is consistent with operational requirements.
    Dr. Reid: At this critical juncture for our troops in the former Yugoslavia, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to lay to rest some of the fears that have been expressed both at home and abroad by assuring the House that the use of military force in Bosnia, under United Nations mandate, will continue to be related to specific achievable and impartial humanitarian objectives and that forces will not be allowed to stumble into an ill-considered partisan or futile intervention of a more general nature in that theatre?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, of course, it has been Her Majesty's Government's view, since the very beginning of this conflict, that crucial to the authority of the United Nations and its forces is the need for them to remain bipartisan in making a contribution at the humanitarian level and at the peacekeeping level so that the country may see the United Nations as the protector of all its peoples, as an organisation that is not partisan in the way it carries out its responsibilities.
    Mr. Brazier: With regard to the impact on other theatres of operation, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us when it is next intended to hold a brigade or divisional exercise? The removal of infantry for various tasks—vital tasks such as those that have to be undertaken in Northern Ireland and others such as are being discharged in Bosnia—has created an overstretch that many of us feel has prevented the remaining formations from carrying out such exercises. When is the next brigade exercise planned?
    Mr. Rifkind: That will be for the Army to decide.
    However, the work being done by our forces in Bosnia and elsewhere is regarded as very valuable training and experience. Thus, it is seen as being in no way irrelevant to their true purpose or role.

    Military Expenditure
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make proposals for greater burden sharing of military expenditure among European members of NATO and the Western European Union.
    Mr. Rifkind: The recent NATO summit agreed that European allies should take a greater responsibility for common security and defence. This will be achieved through the development of a European security and defence identity, expressed through the WEU, which will in turn strengthen the European pillar of the alliance.
    Mr. Mandelson: In view of the further development of pooled European defence arrangements which, as the Secretary of State has said, were agreed at the NATO

    13
    summit and were foreshadowed by the Maastricht treaty,does he agree that common European defence policies require common thresholds of military spending by member states? Will the Government therefore give much greater impetus to devising new approaches to European defence spending in the run up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should not get too obsessed with percentages when he compares the defence expenditures of various European countries. It is perhaps significant that the United Kingdom, France and Germany spend much the same sums of money on defence because in each case they have substantial commitments to the NATO alliance and to their other responsibilities. The three countries—which are, of course, the three senior European members of NATO—have comparable levels of defence expenditure, and that is no coincidence.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House when, as a result of those splendid arrangements, we can expect to see the Wehmacht committed to operations such as those in Bosnia and elsewhere which have a direct reflection on NATO and on western security?
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that my hon. Friend is perhaps referring to the Bundeswehr, and not to the Wehmacht. I do not think that even my hon. Friend would be anxious to see the Wehmacht carrying out the responsibilities which he suggested. The Federal Government of Germany have indicated their desire to see the Bundeswehr carry out such responsibilities as soon as the German constitution permits such a task.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Secretary of State agree that if some of our European allies continue to reduce their defence expenditure at the current rate there will be a real possibility that the concept of the WEU as a European pillar of NATO will fast become a joke? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that, at a time of general instability in Europe when NATO is being called upon to carry out new tasks, it is important that all member states of the alliance—including the smaller states—should continue to make a credible contribution to the defence needs of the alliance. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the House would settle down. It is very noisy this afternoon, and even the Secretary of State has difficulty in hearing the supplementary questions—let alone me.

    Infantry Strength
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is current front-line infantry strength; and what it was in 1990.
    Mr. Hanley: On 1 February this year, the total trained strength of the infantry was about 29,400. On 1 April 1990, it was about 35,900. These figures exclude 3,460 Gurkhas, 6,800 Royal Marines and soldiers from other arms deployed in the infantry role which are regularly about 1,280.
    Mr. Pawsey: Given that fall in numbers, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient numbers of infantry
    14
    able to discharge the United Kingdom's obligations in Hong Kong, Northern Ireland and Belize, and for the defence of United Kingdom itself?
    Mr. Hanley: The answer is yes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced last November that certain amalgamations would be withdrawn and that there would be 3,000 extra back-up troops because we keep under regular review the need to meet our commitments. At current levels, we believe that the forces which we have meet those commitments, and meet them well.

    Defence Export Services Organisation
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the jobs created as a result of the activities of the Defence Export Services Organisation since 1979.
    Mr. Aitken: We estimate that at least 145,000 jobs in the defence sector are related to exports.
    Dr. Jones: Is not it a disgrace that the Defence Export Services Organisation spent £16· million last year in promoting world instability? Would not more jobs be secured if that money, and other subsidies for arms manufacturers and support for the arms industry, were spent in helping them to diversify into civil manufacture?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady seeks to condemn the Defence Export Services Organisation for spending £16 million and says that that creates instability. I assure her that she is completely and utterly wrong. As I said in an answer to an earlier question, last year our defence exporters aided by DESO managed to clock up the remarkable total of £6 billion of defence exports—a record-breaking figure. That creates jobs, prosperity and economic strength for this country and an overwhelming number of hon. Members on both sides of the House warmly welcome that success.

    Vacant Dwellings
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of vacant dwellings owned by his Department.
    Mr. Hanley: As at 31 December 1993, my Department owned 10,108 vacant married quarters and 151 vacant Ministry of Defence houses. In addition 1,468 vacant married quarters and 44 vacant MOD civilian houses were in the process of being sold. The majority of the vacant married quarters were either undergoing or awaiting major works or modernisation, held for unit deployments, or already allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Minister recall the statement by his fellow Minister, Viscount Cranborne, that many sales to housing associations were either delayed or terminated because of lack of funding? Does he accept that the Government's restrictions on capital expenditure are resulting in thousands of Ministry of Defence homes remaining empty while thousands of people are homeless?
    Mr. Hanley: The Ministry of Defence sold 2,000 married quarters last year and we intend to sell another 5,000 during the next five years, which is a pretty impressive record.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Prime Minister recall that not a single vote was cast in the House on Second Reading against the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and that 231 hon. and right hon. Members voted for it? Will he assure the House that nothing will be done by the Government side to obstruct the passage of that Bill and that an early opportunity will be found for the Report stage and Third Reading?
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House before, we share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We have done a great deal for disabled people in recent years and will do yet more, both in this Parliament and the next. What we need to do in Committee and thereafter is to look at the practical implications of the Bill, and that will be done.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Following his recent success in encouraging and welcoming the introduction of Russian ground troops into the former Yugoslavia, as part of the United Nations Protection Force, will my right hon. Friend try to use his influence to improve communications between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and President Yeltsin, so that the Russian President will not feel excluded from the implementation of resolution 836, for which Russia voted in the Security Council on 4 June 1993?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend clearly indicates, Russia has a very important part to play in the peace process and I very much welcome the actions by the Russian deputy Foreign Minister during the past 24 hours to support the ceasefire negotiations.
    As far as the recent close air support is concerned, UNPROFOR and NATO acted in accordance with the Security Council resolution that my hon. Friend mentioned. Both resolutions 836 and 844 were at the time accepted by Russia. In that instance, the close air support operation did not require further consultation with any Government and in those circumstances it was correctly authorised by the Secretary-General's special representative, but clearly, where it is militarily practicable, it is wise to seek the support of those countries that supported the resolution.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the appearance of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at yesterday's manifesto launch of Westminster city council—a council that the district auditor said wasted £21 million of taxpayers' money—an admission that the Government are happy to condone waste and incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: Yesterday, I had the pleasure of spending some time in Birmingham, which I much enjoyed. If the right hon. Lady wishes to talk about waste and incompetence she might look at some of the activities of Birmingham city council in recent years.
    Mrs. Beckett: What is the country to make—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Beckett: What is the country to make of the fact that the Minister in charge of the nation's purse-strings openly endorses a council that sold three cemeteries for 5p each, which had to be bought back at a cost of millions of pounds, and that the district auditor says has wasted £21 million of public money? What kind of standards are these?
    The Prime Minister: I should be more impressed with what the right hon. Lady has to say if she applied precisely the same criteria to many Labour authorities, not just Birmingham—[Interruption.]—that I have mentioned. Some of my hon. Friends have just mentioned others and there are many to draw from.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Prime Minister understand that he and his Government deceived the public about the poll tax, deceived the public about income tax and deceived the public about value added tax, and are now trying to deceive the public about council tax and about their record on local authorities, that no one believes the Government any longer and that that is why the local elections and the Euro elections will be a referendum on the record of the Prime Minister and his whole Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am bound to say that that was just a touch laboured. If she wants to talk about deceit on taxation, the right hon. Lady might look at her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who, on the council tax, was forced to admit after weeks of prevarication that Conservative councils were noticeably less expensive to the council tax payer than Labour authorities. Whatever band of council tax one takes, the answer is the same: Labour councils tax more than Conservative councils.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend as alarmed as I am at the unusual comments made by Vladimir Zhirinovsky in France this morning when he spoke about the possibility of a nuclear attack on France? Does he agree with me that now is not the time to talk about nuclear disarmament as some Opposition Members have done?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There should be no doubt that we will maintain our nuclear deterrent in its strength, quite unlike Opposition Members who for many years have been prepared to abandon it unilaterally.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that apart from the action taken by the United Nations being consistent with UN Security Council resolutions, as he has suggested, it was also necessary to support the authority of the UN and it was required for the protection of UN peacekeepers? Does he also agree with me that now is the time to keep our nerve, maintain our military determination and increase diplomatic pressure on the Serbs in order to

    17
    persuade them that they have more to gain from returning to the peace process than from aggression or from further challenges to United Nations authority?
    The Prime Minister: On this occasion, I am able broadly to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Close air support will remain available to the UN commanders, and they will be able to call on it again if they consider it necessary under either resolution 836 or resolution 844. I hope that those who may be prepared to attack UNPROFOR will draw the appropriate lesson from what has happened so that further use of close air support is unnecessary. As regards keeping our nerve, we are determined to do whatever we can to try to bring about a full settlement. A huge amount has been achieved in the past eight weeks or so. We need to build on it in the weeks ahead, and there will be no loss of nerve here or, I hope, anywhere else.
    Mr. Bates: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest edition of plant Location International which has carried out a poll of the world's best regions for foreign direct investment in which Shenzhen, China is third, Cape province, South Africa is second and the northern region is first? Does not this excellent news demonstrate how the economic fortunes of the north-east have been transformed since 1979 under the present Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that that particular publication was not part of my Easter reading, but I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has to say and I certainly share his view about the renewal of prospects, not just in the north-east, but in the whole of the northern part of England.
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Donohoe: Making reference to the statement made earlier by the Prime Minister in connection with Birmingham, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the lies and deceptions contained in last week's Tory party broadcast?
    The Prime Minister: I never condemn reality and truth. The reality is that we could have given a whole series of illustrations, not just of Birmingham city council, but of a series of other councils—Coventry, Waltham Forest, Derbyshire. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) knows all about Derbyshire and the chairman of the finance committee.
    Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady may contemplate that before she asks me again about Westminster or any other Conservative authority. So I think that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) ought to consider the depth of corruption and despair that there is as a result of Labour local authorities.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with other European political leaders about deregulation in respect of European directives.
    The Prime Minister: The Commission has said that it will bring forward proposals that will involve the simplification or repeal of about 25 per cent. of Community legislation.
    Mr. Steen: In view of the Prime Minister's success in persuading the Commission of the need for greater deregulation, will he try and persuade the other European leaders of the need to embark upon a compliance cost assessment before any directive is implemented, so that every country in Europe knows the cost to its taxpayers before a directive is enforced and implemented?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of compliance cost assessment, and we are actively encouraging other member states in the Community to introduce systems similar to our own. We are seeking to strengthen the Commission's systems, so ensuring that all proposals for Community legislation are justified in terms of their costs and of their benefits, because the only rational way for Europe to behave in terms of its future legislation is to ensure that Europe becomes more competitive and avoids unnecessary on-costs and over-regulation.

    Engagements
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Hara: Talking of Westminster, Library statistics tell us that Tory Westminster spends £78 more per capita than Liverpool and yet it manages to do that on a band D council tax which is less than one third of Liverpool's. What possible justification can the Prime Minister give for such flagrant politically motivated gerrymandering of central Government support to Westminster?
    The Prime Minister: One of the great differences between Westminster and many of the local authorities that the hon. Gentleman is so fond of is that Westminster collects its rents, for example. If one were to consider—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman—
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were to examine the list of local authorities that have a bad rent collection record, he would find Labour local authorities heading that list and running right down it. He would find the same if he considered local authorities in debt, and the same with local authorities who have empty dwellings. The reality is, on any realistic measure of local authority performance, the worst local authorities are socialist local authorities.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the city of Chester.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Chester is one of the great cultural capitals of Europe, the home of two fine theatres and the place where

    19
    the first movie was shown in this country, in 1890? Will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the extraordinary contribution of film and theatre to this country's economy and standing; a contribution best exemplified by the unique career of Sir John Gielgud, who is visiting Westminster today and who celebrates his 90th birthday this week?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the film and variety industry, to the city of Chester and to Sir John Gielgud. I did not myself hear it, but I gather that those who did hear his remarkable King Lear over the weekend regarded it as one of the finest Lears that they had ever heard. He will be very welcome in Westminster, and I should like to add my congratulations to Sir John on his 90th birthday.

    London (Policies)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have been assessed as the most popular in London.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will see the best of London local government if he looks at the outstanding services offered by Conservative boroughs throughout London.
    Mr. Hughes: If the Prime Minister is unwilling to change his most popular policies, which have reduced his support from more than 45 per cent. to 26 per cent. in the capital, would he like to consider changing his least popular policies and not close hospitals such as Guy's which have now been shown to be part of a health service in which there is no surplus of beds, no surplus of resources and a huge amount of still unmet London-wide need?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman either fails to understand or fails to mention is the fact that the changes in the hospital structure in London are mirrored by changes to primary health care that will deliver very dramatic improvements in primary health care for all Londoners. There is no doubt that that is necessary and that, as a result of these changes, Londoners will both deserve and receive the standards of health care that I believe they should have and that are enjoyed elsewhere.

Gorazde
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Gorazde.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Close air support was requested by General Rose on the afternoon of 10 April in response to the threat to United Nations personnel trapped in part of Gorazde by Serb attackers closing in on the town. There are at present 12 UN military observers in Gorazde—eight of them British—and four United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees personnel.
The request, which was backed by General de la Presle, the commander of UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia, was speedily authorised by the UN special representative, Mr. Akashi. Two US F16s under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command carried out air attacks against a Serb artillery position. Serb shelling continued for a short period thereafter, but, according to UN reports, the city was mostly quiet during the night.
Yesterday morning, the shelling resumed, despite warnings from UNPROFOR commanders and demonstration flights by NATO planes. General Rose requested further close air support after Serb shelling of the city close to UN positions. At 12·21, two F18 aircraft under NATO command bombed three Serb armoured vehicles. We understand that the shelling has since diminished.
The decision to call for close air support was taken in accordance with agreed UN and NATO procedures and has our full support. The UN Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Ghali, has also approved the action taken. The safety of UNPROFOR personnel, including the 3,300 British troops on the ground in Bosnia, is always paramount. On this occasion, the risk to UNPROFOR personnel was thought by UNPROFOR commanders grave enough to warrant a request to NATO for air support. Such air support is clearly authorised by UN Security Council resolutions 836 and 844.
Despite some threats, there has so far been no significant military retaliation and only minor harassment of UNPROFOR and UNHCR personnel. All humanitarian convoys crossing Bosnian Serb areas and aid flights into Sarajevo were suspended. They have not yet resumed, although we hope that they will be able to do so soon. The Overseas Development Administration remains in close co-ordination with UNPROFOR and UNHCR on contingency planning.
Although the situation in Gorazde is, I am told, now relatively calm, more than 100 people are reported to have been killed there in the past few days. The parties should sit down and agree to an overall ceasefire. That is what UNPROFOR has been trying to negotiate, as a first step towards a general political settlement involving, as it would have to, substantial Serb withdrawal from territory now occupied.
I am in touch with Mr. Kozyrev about the important Russian role in this effort. The parties should draw the right lessons from the use of air power. Sir Michael Rose has made it clear that UNPROFOR is not taking sides in the conflict. That is not its task. It does not intend to be drawn
22
into open-ended intervention for or against any of the parties. But the international community has made it clear that it will not tolerate attacks on UNPROFOR, and attacks on the safe areas must cease. I am sure that the House will welcome the prompt and necessary action taken by NATO in support of UNPROFOR personnel, with the full support of both those organisations.
Dr. Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we accept that the action taken was fully authorised by existing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and, as such, has our complete support? Does he also accept that we believe that it was not necessary to seek anyone's prior agreement before that action was taken and authorised by commanders on the ground, with the support of the United Nations representative in Bosnia?
What political strategy is the United Nations now to follow in view of this latest setback involving the Serbian advance on Gorazde and the reimposition of the blockade on Sarajevo? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the intention to use air power in defence of designated safe areas unless such use is authorised by a further resolution of the United Nations Security Council? What change in circumstances led to action yesterday rather than two weeks ago when the first Serbian advances on Gorazde began? Why did the United Nations and NATO wait for two weeks before taking action in support of UNPROFOR forces on the ground?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the importance—I believe that he does—of keeping Russia fully engaged in the situation, especially as its support was so vital in securing a ceasefire at Sarajevo and Mr. Churkin has expressed the intention to get the Serbs back to the negotiating table as quickly as possible? Should not Russia have been informed earlier of the action taken by NATO warplanes?
Is it not clear that the Bosnian Prime Minister, Dr. Silajdzic, has a point when he says that the Serbs have again gained territory without the United Nations acting quickly enough to prevent the Serb advance? Is he not also right when he says that it was entirely predictable that the decision to allow the Serbs to take away their heavy artillery from Sarajevo would inevitably mean that those guns would be used for the bombardment of Gorazde and other safe areas?
Exactly when does the right hon. Gentleman think that further action will be taken and what will be the nature of such action if, as he says is the intention, the Serbs do not withdraw to their positions as of 30 March this year?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support of the NATO action. He asked about the back-up diplomatic strategy of the UN. With the full encouragement and active work of the Americans, there has recently been a Croat-Muslim agreement and the task now is to hook the Serbs into it. As I said in my original answer, it involves substantial Serb withdrawal from land that they now occupy. They agreed that in principle on HMS Invincible.
The powers for the air action were exercised under United Nations Security Council resolutions 836 and 844. The right hon. Gentleman knows the content of those resolutions and how wide they are. Those powers have not been exceeded on this occasion. Obviously, if it were proposed to take further action outside the terms of those resolutions, a new resolution would be needed.

23
The right hon. Gentleman asked about timing—those are matters for military judgment. Close air support is not called for until and unless the commanders involved and Mr. Akashi feel that all other ways of protecting UN personnel in the safe areas have been exhausted. Their judgment was that the right time—that moment—came over the weekend.
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right: of course, it would be better if everything—all ills, suffering and fighting in Bosnia—had been brought to an end in one go, but that has not happened. We have had progress step by step. It is right to say that there is much more to be done. The present tensions and fighting in Gorazde illustrate that, but they are not a condemnation of what has been achieved so far.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Russia—his concern links with, but slightly contradicts, one of his first questions. If one is to take air action of that sort, it must be done quickly—
Dr. John Cunningham: I said "informed".
Mr. Hurd: I am coming to "informed". Forty-four minutes elapsed between the request and the action. It is precisely because of the need for speed that both the UN and NATO agreed procedures that allowed for speed, but did not mean that member states could be consulted in advance. They were informed soon afterwards—in New York on Sunday afternoon.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend accept that what is at stake here is not just a beleaguered town in Bosnia, but the authority and credibility of the United Nations itself? Does he accept that it is vital that ethnic cleansing, territorial aggression, and the seizing of territory and the altering of boundaries by force are not rewarded and are not seen to be ultimately rewarded?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's point. Some of those objectives can be secured by the use of force as defined by the decisions of NATO and the UN Security Council; some of them require economic pressure; all of them require political pressure. It is that mix which must be constantly brought into action.
Sir David Steel: Self-evidently, no military action in Bosnia is without risk. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that by far the greatest risk would have been the flouting and humiliation of the UN's authority by allowing the bombardment of the safe area of Gorazde to continue unchecked, and that that risk has now been overcome? Can he confirm to the House the reports that, this morning, General Rose has warned the Bosnian army against continuing attacks on the Serbs? If that is so, does it not disprove the absurd charge that the UN has abandoned neutrality?
Mr. Hurd: General Rose and UNPROFOR have been concerned about actions in Sarajevo and Gorazde by all sides involved, and, in central Bosnia, by the Croats as well. It is perfectly true that the weight of attack and the weight of blame rests on the Bosnian Serbs. The right hon. Gentleman is right.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the procedures for calling for
24
close air support have been drastically improved in recent months, and it is essential that decisions are taken at the lowest possible level in Bosnia? Has consideration been given to rotating the nations supplying the aircraft for that specific role? Can my right hon. confirm that the principle of the minimum use of force will be adhered to as closely as possible?
Mr. Hurd: Yes. Decisions are taken by Mr. Akashi on behalf of the UN and by Admiral Boorda on behalf of NATO. That has been carefully worked out in principle and is now working effectively in practice, but, of course, it is a matter of last resort. It is for the NATO authorities to decide which planes on which occasions should be responsible for carrying out the action.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us have been advocating such action from the outset? If it has been proved as successful as he said it has been, would not a great many lives have been saved had the policy been employed 18 months ago?
Mr. Hurd: I made a mistake in naming Admiral Boorda—he was replaced by Admiral Smith.
Those are matters of judgment, in which military advice need not always be paramount but is bound to weigh heavily. That action was taken at the time and in the way recommended by General Rose and approved by his superior, General de la Presle, and the UN. I am not at all clear that earlier action would have received that kind of approval.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is inconceivable that the United Nations, having declared a safe area, could allow it to be overrun? Will he clarify the status by which those save havens can be protected, and say whether anything more is necessary from the UN, to enable air strikes for that purpose—as opposed to the purpose of looking after the lives of UNPROFOR personnel?
Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend reads Security Council resolution 836, he will find there the definition of the mandate. We are content with that, at present. I believe that all the allies, and the UNPROFOR commanders, are content with it. One cannot peer wholly into the future, but I believe that the present mandate is sufficient.
My hon. Friend's first point was entirely right. The UN needs not so much an extension of the mandate as more troops, and Britain took the initiative a short while ago to bring that about. It produced a certain result, which was very necessary. In addition to our own 900 extra men to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred a few minutes ago, we have commitments and some extra men.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: But not enough.
Mr. Hurd: But not enough. Turkey, the Czech Republic and other countries have made commitments. The sooner those troops can be effective on the ground, the better.
Ms Kate Hoey: In welcoming the action taken to help save lives in Gorazde, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he has communicated with President Clinton in the past couple of days, concerning the possibility of American troops helping to protect safe areas

25
—particularly Sarajevo, where there is peace at the moment? That would be in line with American policy of participating as part of a peace process.
Mr. Hurd: President Clinton has made his position clear often enough. The United States would be willing to consider providing ground troops in Bosnia under NATO command, up to a certain proportion, once there is a general settlement. He has not moved from that position. What is happening—particularly in Sarajevo—is that the Americans are active in the task of reconstruction. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was last in Washington, he agreed with President Clinton a joint Anglo-American civilian task force designed to help Sarajevo to get back to normal. The Americans are active in that way and in the air.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a sea change in attitudes in the former Yugoslavia? Whereas, previously, many were reluctant to see a further commitment given, it was right to build on the improvement there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, from a diplomatic point of view, there is every argument for consulting everyone before using close air support—but from a military point of view, it is crucial that there should be minimal delay between calling for close air support and using it? Is he satisfied that delay is minimal now?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, I am. My hon. Friend put his second point extremely well—he is exactly right. As to his first point, there has been a substantial change, and we must not see it thrown away. That is why we took the decisions that we did—giving a lead in that respect and reinforcing success. The ceasefire in Sarajevo was followed by one in central Bosnia and the agreement between the Croats and Muslims that I mentioned. That is not nearly enough, but it is the start of good news. It would be a tragedy if, through any lack of effort by the UN or any failure of nerve, that good news were to turn to bad news.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the Russians had been informed of impending action, would there have been a danger of their trying to block it? If so, would they have been successful?
Mr. Hurd: No, because the action did not require a new Security Council resolution.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that NATO has available massive air assets, and that the minimum amount used in this instance demonstrates how carefully thought out was that particular operation? It is one thing to attack tanks and other heavy armour, but another to make assets available for attacks against mortars and more difficult equipment—and there would be huge political and military risks in any escalation.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows from past exchanges that all the thoughts that he has just uttered are very much in our minds and have been for a long time. The choice of the planes used and the choice of the targets selected show that what my hon. Friend said about care has been fully observed.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that UN Security Council resolutions already authorise the use of force to protect the
26
safe areas and not just the UN forces in those areas? Given that air action has now been used and, apparently, has been effective, will not it be difficult in future to sustain that distinction and say that we will not use air power to defend civilians but that we will use it to protect our forces?
Mr. Hurd: UNSC resolution 836
"Authorizes UNPROFOR…in carrying out the mandate defined in paragraph 5 above, acting in self-defence, to take the necessary measures, including the use of force, in reply to bombardments against the safe areas by any of the parties or to armed incursion into them".
There are several elements there, but the hon. Gentleman obviously knows the text and knows that it offers considerable scope.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will Her Majesty's Government make it quite plain to the belligerents that, in the event of either technical malfunction or hostile fire leading to the ejection of Royal Air Force or Royal Navy air crew over Bosnia, entirely humane treatment is expected on the part of the belligerents towards those air crew, and that there should be no retaliation whatever to the action of UNPROFOR personnel acting as monitors who, for their own self-defence, have to act temporarily as forward air controllers to bring in close air support?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend, with his knowledge, will not expect me to speak about forward air control, but both his general points must be right.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did not the Foreign Secretary rather sharply confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that, whatever the Russians had done, in no circumstances would it have altered the situation and the decision to attack? Is it really wise to undertake any attack without Russian endorsement, given that they are absolutely crucial to any lasting solution and in persuading the Serbs not to go on the offensive?
Mr. Hurd: I mentioned in my original answer the importance—I would say the crucial importance—of the Russian role. The hon. Gentleman has just underlined that. The Russians, in influencing the Serbs, and I hope also the Bosnian Serbs, are indispensable. But the Russians are also realists. They know perfectly well the procedures; they have been endlessly discussed, and with the Russians. They know the procedures for close air support. They know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) pointed out vividly, that if one is to have such procedures, they preclude consultation in advance of member states. Member states are fully entitled to be promptly informed, and can then discuss the consequences. That is happening now.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is my right hon. Friend perfectly satisfied that it is both prudent and appropriate to use NATO forces in an offensive role, bearing in mind that, when NATO was founded in 1949, it was founded as a purely defensive organisation?
Mr. Hurd: When one has UN troops—including in this case British personnel—at risk in a particular situation, who are approved by the Security Council with the full support of all NATO countries, action to protect those people is not offensive but essentially defensive.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Secretary of State heard the reports this lunch hour, presumably from UNPROFOR sources, that Muslim forces in Gorazde have been launching mortar shell attacks against Serb positions? Will he confirm that the military hostilities that began two weeks ago in and around Gorazde were the result of a Muslim infantry offensive? Should such further offensives take place from safe havens such as Srebrenica or Maglaj, what action will he recommend under UNSC resolution 836?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is extraordinarily difficult to get at the truth about the origins of each of those incidents. That is certainly true.
Mr. Wareing: It is important, though.
Mr. Hurd: It is very important, and that is why the British have placed such emphasis on getting the right equipment in place to make the best job of it that we can. But it is not an exact science. There is always a temptation for one side to start something relatively minor in the hope that the other side will respond in a way that the world then notices and condemns. That has been one of the problems all the way through.
Having said that, I think that the House will, on the whole, accept that the main responsibility for recent bloodshed—indeed, for the origins of the war—rests with the Bosnian Serbs, and that General Rose was therefore justified in specifying the action that he recommended and which was taken.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that one of the top priorities of British foreign policy is the continuing improvement of relations between Russia and the United Kingdom? As we have become increasingly sucked into the civil war in Bosnia in the past 12 months, with increased land forces and now air attacks, will he assure the House that further increases in our involvement in Bosnia will take into account the relationship with Russia?
Mr. Hurd: We do take into account the relationship with Russia, but it is a relationship of countries that are friendly but which have different foreign policies in several respects. The Russians do not expect us to dance to their tune in Bosnia. They have an important role, and when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were in Moscow not long ago, we spent most of the time discussing that role. I understand what the Russians are trying to do. In the Baltic states it has not been positive; but in Bosnia it has been positive, and we want to keep it that way, which means keeping in close touch with them.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am delighted, at long last, after the appalling dilatoriness and pusillanimity of the right hon. Gentleman and his European Foreign Secretary colleagues, to be able to congratulate him whole-heartedly on his statement and the stand that it at long last embodies?
Mr. Hurd: It has been easy for the hon. Gentleman to stand and shout at me from the Back Benches for many months, but his type of interventions, although they are sincerely felt and strongly expressed, have not always been well judged, either in timing or in substance. The sending even of a couple of F16s and the use of force in this way, as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who speaks for the Liberal party,
28
recognises, are bound to be very risky decisions which can carry very serious consequences. They are not to be enterprised or taken in hand simply as a relief for emotion.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify precisely the chain of command? He told us who asked for the air strikes and he told us who approved the air strikes, but who authorised them? Was President Clinton informed before American aircraft were used in those air strikes?
The reason that I ask the question, which the Foreign Secretary will fully understand, is that when he announced Government's change of policy he said that the unity of NATO was the prime consideration. What many people are wondering about, apart from the risk that the action might lead to escalation into a deeper conflict, is whether the unity of NATO is being put above the unity of the United Nations where the Soviet Union—Russia, as it is today— is a permanent member of the Security Council and, therefore, has a special statutory position, quite apart from its historic geographical interest in the area.
Mr. Hurd: Close air support of this kind is decided by NATO Commander-in-Chief South, Admiral Smith, once he is clear that the representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Akashi, has approved. That is what took place this time. The President of the United States—the United States Administration—was informed at the same time as we were. They were the procedures that had been worked out and approved, and the Russians knew of them. They take place under United Nations Security Council resolution 836 which the Russians approved.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in his original question related to the delay in informing the Russians that the attack had taken place. The Foreign Secretary knows, because he said it himself, that the Russians are crucial if we are to get the Serbs around the negotiating table. That is what concerns my colleagues. We are not asking for the Russians to be consulted; we understand that the attack took place under Security Council resolutions, but we are concerned about the delay in informing the Russians, and that is the concern which the Russians themselves have expressed.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talked about consultation and I think that we have dealt with that point.
As regards information, I have no reason to suppose that there was undue delay by the UN in informing Ambassador Vorontsov in New York of what had occurred.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is it not tragically true and salutary to point out, even at this stage, that the suffering in Bosnia over the past few days bears no comparison to the suffering in Rwanda? Also, does not the suffering in the former Yugoslavia in the past 12 months bear little comparison to the suffering in Angola? Therefore, what reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give the House and the country that the international community's consideration of those matters bears some relation, at least in time, energy and money spent, to the suffering in the countries concerned?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member makes an extremely good point, which I have made over the years in answering

29
questions about Bosnia. The international community is simply not equipped—it should not pretend that it is equipped—to bring peace with justice to all those tragedies across the world. We in this country are certainly not equipped to act as a policeman or a judge or a universal soldier in that way. We must reckon with that and we have to do what we can, where we can.
The civil war in Bosnia and the suffering in the former Yugoslavia are in our continent. They are quite close to us. It is right that we should he devoting such effort to them. I do not accept the argument that because we cannot do everything, we should do nothing. We should not pretend that those other tragedies are not taking place, because they are.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: A moment or two ago, the Foreign Secretary referred to the participation of Turkish soldiers in the United Nations peacekeeping role. He knows well that numerous concerns have been expressed about that. Will he tell the House what role they will play? Is it entirely a supportive role and will they be under the tight control of General Rose and his fellow officers?
Mr. Hurd: Certainly, all UN troops are under tight UN command, including our own and the Russians, who are there in Sarajevo. The hon. Member should be assured of that. Where the Turks should be deployed is a matter for the UN. Obviously, there has been some concern about that, as there has been concern from the opposite point of view about the Russians. I believe that it was right of the Secretary-General, against the background of his need, to take up the long-standing offer of the Turks.

Newly Qualified Drivers
4.2 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require newly qualified drivers to display on the vehicles they are driving an indication that they are newly qualified; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to improve road safety by measures specifically relating to newly qualified drivers. It is a two-part Bill which attempts to combat public fears and problems of road safety. Part I requires the display of a plate for one year, following the passing of the official test, and part II reduces the maximum penalty points for the same period from 12 to nine.
Let me say from the outset that my wife maintains that she is a better driver than I. She passed her test on the first occasion and I passed mine on the second. More than two decades later, we are still driving, although, when we are together, I invariably drive. When I asked my wife why that should be the case, she said that it is to enable her to give me continual instructions on how I should be driving. It would be less than gallant of me to describe such behaviour in a lady as that of a classic back-seat driver.
Whatever can be said of my driving or that of my wife, both of us remember graphically what it was like to be a newly qualified driver and how nerve-racking it could be in the early days when one drove alone, especially if one had no motorway experience. A recent study shows that almost three quarters of newly qualified drivers on the road are under 25 years of age. My Bill would mean that the probationary period would apply to all newly qualified drivers, regardless of age.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of road accidents. That may seem a difficult objective to achieve, because accidents are often down to the unpredictable behaviour of human beings. Nevertheless, over recent years the Department of Transport has embarked upon a host of measures, after taking careful advice, and I believe that they have made a substantial contribution to the reduction of road accidents in general.
I pay a warm tribute to all those who have been involved with effective road safety measures, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and, especially, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has twice tried to introduce a similar measure. I hope that with my Bill it will be a case of third time lucky.
It is difficult to find adequate words to describe the horror that confronts our policemen every day of the week when they call to tell relatives that their loved ones have been injured, maimed or, worse still, killed. Such events and the traumas associated with them leave a scar on everyone involved. On what I believe to be an all-party issue, it must make sense for Parliament to do all in its power to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies.
Seventy-six per cent. of the accidental deaths of 16 to 19-year-olds result from road accidents. Even more shocking is the fact that drivers aged 17 to 21 are responsible for more than 1,000 deaths a year as a result of vehicle accidents. That age group represents only 10 per cent. of licence holders, yet its members are involved in 20 per cent. of all accidents. An 18-year-old is three times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a

31
48-year-old; every mile driven by a 17-year-old is seven times more likely to result in an accident than a mile driven by a middle-aged man.
What are the reasons for those shocking statistics? I do not believe that passing an official driving test is very hard for many people, although I fully accept that some people who would make excellent drivers suffer from nerves when faced with the test. However, most people taking the test are younger and more dextrous. The test can be taken and passed so quickly today.
Does passing really mean that a person is fit and equipped with the necessary skills to drive safely on all our roads? I fear not. For example, it has always seemed extraordinary to me that some people pass their tests yet appear to have no knowledge whatever of the basic workings of a motor vehicle. That is not helpful when we are trying to ensure that motorists drive safely.
I freely admit that no driving test in any country can be more than a poor reflection of the real driving world. The Metropolitan police believe that one of the biggest problems is the misconception of what a driver's licence means. All that it really means is that newly qualified drivers can now learn to drive on their own. The misconception causes newly qualified people to think that they are good drivers, who can drive like experienced drivers, so they are injured and killed at a disproportionate rate.
All the factors that I have outlined support the need for a probation plate for one year. We can argue about the letter that should be displayed on the plate, but the Bill's aim is to reduce the total of deaths and injuries by using a distinctive mark on vehicles and introducing tighter penalties.
Newly qualified drivers' reactions are much slower in potential accident situations. The new plate seeks to minimise the resulting dangers by alerting other drivers. Following consultation, the Secretary of State would decide what letter would be designated for the plate for the one-year mandatory display.
Even with all that, it would be necessary to introduce the second part of the Bill, which is an attempt to lower the penalty point allowance for newly qualified drivers from 12 to nine points. That would provide an incentive for new drivers to take much more care and cultivate good road manners. Last week, the Automobile Association said that a lower points allowance was a good idea. Only one in six drivers are newly qualified, but they are involved in one in four reported accidents. The AA believes that something certainly needs to be done about the problem, and that the Bill is a step in the right direction.
The AA is not alone in its support; the Metropolitan Police also endorses its views. They are totally supportive of a reduction from 12 to nine penalty points on the ground that that would lead to more responsible driving. They quote the old saying that the safest driver is the commercial vehicle driver with nine points on his licence. If we transferred that axiom to the newly qualified driver with a lower point maximum, it would still hold true.
The Magistrates Association also supports the principle of one year's probation for new drivers and a reduction in the maximum penalty points during that period. The
32
association told me that measures involving new drivers, as proposed in my Bill, would reduce over-confidence and bring about improvements in road safety.
Finally, other countries have evidence to prove the value in terms of road safety of the measures that I am proposing. I cannot believe that, with British organisational skills, we would find it difficult to administer a life-saving scheme. It is not my intention to spoil the joy of a family when one of its members passes the driving test; rather, it is to prevent the chilling knock on the door when a policeman arrives with tragic news. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.11 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I oppose the proposed Bill, in the same way that I opposed the similar one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
The whole House will share the respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for the police when they must knock on a stranger's door and bring bad news about a traffic crash. We should stop talking about traffic accidents and talk about crashes because we know a great deal about the causes.
I do not want to focus on my hon. Friend's proposed reduction in the number of penalty points that would be allowed. I want to stick to the advertising of new qualification by what is normally referred to as a P for probationary or R for restricted plate. My hon. Friend rightly did not share with the House whether he thought that the plate that should be displayed would have restrictions associated with it.
Some people argue that one should not be able to drive on motorways; some argue that one should not be able to drive at more than 50 mph; and some argue that one should not be able to have more than one passenger. There is a whole series of options. I object to the principle on which my hon. Friend based his argument. As far as I am aware, there is no substantial body of evidence that having a probationary or restricted plate on the back or front of a car makes any difference.
For some time, part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—has had a similar plate with various restrictions. When I served as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office, having worked as a junior Minister in the Department of Transport, I asked for a study that would show what appeared to be the impact of introducing that requirement—I think that it has been there for about 20 years. The answer is that no one knows.
For some time, the Department of Transport has been examining whether a substantiated claim can be made for having a special plate. We have not yet seen that evidence and I doubt whether it will be conclusive when it comes.
I shall share with the House two articles from "Road Accidents Great Britain 1992: The Casualty Report". That report contains the good news that since 1986—the European Year of Road Safety—the number of road deaths has fallen by more than 1,000. Of course, in the past year, the number has fallen by another 400. That means that many of the actions that have been taken in terms of road-user behaviour, the vehicle and the road environment have clearly been immensely successful.
The article by Kathryn Markey shows that drivers aged between 17 and 20 of either sex are involved in relatively

33
more accidents—I use the word "crashes"—on minor roads, in the dark, away from junctions, on bends and when no other vehicle is involved.
In any of those circumstances—in the dark when one would not be able to see the plate; on minor roads when one would not see much traffic; and away from junctions and bends, or when no other vehicle is involved—I do not se any scientific basis on which one could set up a disprovable hypothesis that would tell us what the effect of the plate would be.
On the question of high-risk offenders, the subsequent article, by Dr. Jeremy Broughton, considers people who have to requalify because they have been caught once driving at two and a half times the legal alcohol limit or twice, during a 10-year period, driving above the legal limit. The peak age for these people is 27. Unless, for some reason, it is a habit desperately concentrated among those who passed the driving test at the age of 26, the logic behind my hon. Friend's proposition could be that anyone aged 26 should display a plate—26 or 27 being the peak age in severe cases involving drinking and driving.
One could argue about displaying plates at different times of the day. Females tend to have accidents in the morning or evening rush hour, whereas the time in the case of males tends to be around 10 o'clock at night. People driving vehicles that are owned by companies tend to have twice or three times as many crashes as individuals, of almost any age, driving their own vehicles.
The proposition ought to be that we should go on doing what has been shown to work. I refer to some of the ideas of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, to one of whose presidents—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is in the House—as to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), I pay tribute. The things that have been shown to work are those that influence people's behaviour. The behavioural research led by the university of Reading, and funded originally by General Accident in one of its really great commercial investments in the protection of young people's lives, indicates that young drivers do not understand what a hazard is. Putting a plate on either end of a car would not change that.
However, it might change if the media could be persuaded to use interesting means—perhaps a five-minute spot each week—of showing what people get wrong.
34
Colour magazines, which contain articles with such titles as "A Day in the Life of … " or "A Meal in the Life of…", might carry something entitled "A Crash in the Life of… ". That might explain what had led to a body-breaking, or at least a metal-bending, crash.
The Transport Research Laboratory has contributed immensely to cutting the number of casualties from 5,400 to 3,800. Here, I question whether it is sensible to go through with the idea of privatising the laboratory. I believe that, if it is privatised, fewer Transport Ministers will rely on the scientific evidence.
The combined work of vehicle engineers and road engineers, as well as of the police in filling in the "Statistics 19" form which provides the basic information in the "Casualty Report" to which I have referred, can lead to a continued reduction in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured.
We can achieve something similar to what was achieved in the case of drunken driving. Young people used to be twice as bad as their fathers but became half as bad. Indeed, we might be able to get below 3,000 deaths a year. That would be almost a third of the peak level, even though the volume of traffic has increased dramatically.
I realise that the intentions behind my hon. Friend's proposed Bill are good. However, I advise the House, and I certainly advise the Department of Transport, to pay no attention to the measure. It is not the way forward. There are many other effective means of cutting the number of casualties.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. lain Duncan Smith, Mr. Robert Dunn, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mrs. Angela Knight, Dame Jill Knight and Lady Olga Maitland.

Newly Qualified Drivers
  NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to require newly qualified drivers to display on the vehicles they are driving an indication that they are newly qualified; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 March] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in Committee and in the Standing Committee), That the clause (Racial harassment) be read a Second time—
  '1.(1) In relation to any prosecution for any offence of violence it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any evidence tending to show that such offence has been committed on the ground of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin ("racial grounds").
  (2) On conviction of any offence of violence the court shall have regard to such evidence in determining the penalty, and, if satisfied that the offence was committed on racial grounds ("racial violence"), shall impose an additional penalty which may exceed the maximum penalty otherwise prescribed for such offence.
  2.(1) A person is guilty of the offence of racial harassment if on racial grounds he:

  (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby; or

  (b) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

  (2) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.
  (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable:

  (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;

  (b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both:.—[Mr. Michael.]

  Question again proposed.
  Madam Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are also debating the following: Government new clause 125—Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable.
  New clause 50—Aggravation of racial hatred—
  '(1) If any person commits any offence provided for by—

  (i) sections 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or

  (ii) sections 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and does so with a motive of racial hatred, then he shall be guilty of the said offence with aggravation of racial hatred.

  (2) In this section, "racial hatred" means racial hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.'.
  New clause 88—Racial hatred—
  '.-Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows—
  In section 27(1) there shall be substituted for the words "of the Attorney General" the words "of the Director of Public Prosecutions".'.
  New clause 89—Offences committed on racial grounds—
  '.—(1) In relation to any prosecution for any offence of violence it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any evidence tending to show that such offence has been committed on racial grounds.
  (2) On conviction of any offence of violence the court shall have regard to such evidence in determining the penalty and if satisfied that the offence was committed on racial grounds shall impose a penalty, which shall not be more than twice the maximum prescribed penalty. The court shall be required to give reasons for the penalty imposed, indicating in what way it has taken account of its finding that the offence was committed on racial grounds.'.
  New clause 90—Racial harassment (No. 2)—
  36
  '.—(1) A person is guilty of the offence of racial harassment if on racial grounds he—

  (a) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress; or

  (b) uses words or behaviour or displays any writing, sign or other visual representation which is offensive on racial grounds within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

  (2) a constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.
  (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both;

  (b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'.

  New clause 97—Incitement to racial hatred (arrestable offence)—
  .—(1) After subsection 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(1A) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects in committing an offence under this section.".
  (2) In Schedule 5 Part II of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Serious Arrestable Offences) there shall be added at the end—
  "Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)
  9. Section 19 (publishing or distributing written material likely to stir up racial hatred).".'.
  New clause 98—Racial hatred (conditions on public processions)—
  —(1) In subsection 12(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be added after the word "community," the words "on racial, religious, ethnic or other grounds,".
  (2) In subsection 12(1)(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be added at the end after the word "do," the words "or to stir up racial hatred,".'.
  New clause 100—Harassment—
  '.—(1) The Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For section 5(1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

  (a) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress; or

  (b) uses words or behaviour or displays any writing, sign or other visual representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.".

  (3) For section 5(4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.".
  (4) Section 5(5) is hereby repealed.
  (5) For section 5(6) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both;

  (b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum or both.".

  (6) For section 6(4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 if a reasonable person would have expected any such trespass or nuisance to cause harassment, alarm or distress, or any such words or behaviour, or any such writing, sign or other visual representation to be threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.".'.

  37
  New clause 127—Racially-motivated violence (No. 2)—
  —(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence of—

  (a) racially motivated manslaughter,

  (b) racially motivated grievous bodily harm,

  (c) racially motivated wounding with intent,

  (d) racially motivated assault occasioning actual bodily harm or

  (e) racially motivated common assault.

  if, with racial motivation he commits manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault respectively.
  (2) In this section "racial motivation" shall mean motivation on the grounds of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
  (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years in addition to, and consecutive to, the sentence applicable for conviction of the offences of common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or assault occasioning grievous bodily harm respectively.'.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. David Sumberg: I suppose that I have a unique qualification to speak to the clauses—not simply because I am Jewish, but because I represent in my constituency many members of the Jewish community. Like my constituents, I have, sadly, been on the receiving end of racism from time to time. To attend, as I did recently, a showing of "Schindler's List"—a memorable and awe-inspiring film—and then to open one's parliamentary post the next morning to find a document which purports to deny the holocaust is perhaps the ultimate obscenity.
  The clauses seem to be divided between those which want to import a racial motive into certain crimes and those which want to increase the enforcement powers which are available to us. I admit that I approach them with mixed emotions and mixed feelings. Those who have proposed new clause 13 and some of the new clauses which have been tabled for the first time today are motivated by honourable feelings, and by the belief that something must be done to combat and reduce the rising tide of racism in our society, which principally affects the black and Asian communities, but which affects the Jewish community as well. They want to make it clear that that rising tide must be curbed.
  It is simply unacceptable that the levels of enforcement, prosecution and action under our existing laws are so deplorably low. Such a situation motivates the belief—particularly in the minds of those who are on the receiving end of racist conduct—that the authorities are reluctant to act.
  Some of those new clauses—particularly those which relate to motivation—have, in my view, a fundamental weakness, and for the supporters of the clauses to overlook that weakness does not assist their case.
  New clause 13, with some of the other new clauses, establishes the need for a higher burden of proof for offences which are already against the law. Murder, violence, conduct against public order and harassment are already punishable severely under the present system, and that is right.
  However, the clauses require an additional burden on the prosecution—to prove a racial motive. Every lawyer and anybody with any connection with the courts will
  38
  know that the hardest thing to prove is motive. One can easily prove that somebody did something, but to prove why they did it is far harder.
  Ms Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman's view is incorrect. New clause 13 is drafted in such a way that, where there is a violent offence, prosecution would be on two counts—the violent offence itself and the racial motivation. It is possible in an aggravated offence that, where racial motivation is not proven, the charge of murder, manslaughter or whatever will still stand and will be prosecuted. We do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is in any way correct, and it is not supported by our legal advice.
  As for racial motivation, the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, if verbal abuse accompanies what are otherwise totally unpredictable attacks, the racial motivation may not be so difficult to prove, after all.
  Mr. Sumberg: I have my doubts about that. It will be difficult to prove. I fear that, if prosecutions are brought under new clause 13 and the allied clauses, they will in all probability fail, which will send everyone the message, no matter what side they take in the argument, that the legislation is weak and not enforceable. Prosecuting, enforcing existing law and bringing offenders to book are the basic problems we face when dealing with racist crimes.
  Before the recess, the only good reason that might have led me to support new clause 13 and similar clauses was that it would have been unacceptable if a major criminal justice Bill made no mention of the increase in racism that we see. This Bill is the centrepiece of the Government's law and order programme and covers every aspect of criminality—I do not need to go into them all—and it would have been wrong if it gave people no comfort and entirely ignored the fact that racism is increasing in Britain. Such a Bill would have sent a message to the people who suffer from such activity that society does not care, and is not prepared to act.
  I am glad that there has been a change of mind during the recess. First, the Government have tabled new clause 125, which I warmly welcome. It will make the publication of racist literature an arrestable offence. Secondly, other hon. Members have tabled clauses that will enforce existing laws and deal with the loopholes.
  Unless my right hon. Friend the Minister can convince me otherwise, I shall certainly support the loophole-plugging clauses, because they are essential. We must tackle the evil in society. For one reason or another, the right action is not being taken. We must consider the matter in that way. It is unacceptable for there to be a rise in membership of the hard right in Britain, which has always been a tolerant, just and humane society—a society that has welcomed immigrants to its shores for many years.
  Equally, we must be careful about the legislation we pass. The present weaknesses in the law are that people are not willing to come forward and give evidence to the prosecution; that it is not being enforced properly; and that there are enforcement loopholes. Those are the evils and the mistakes that we must now tackle.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have moved in some way. I hope that the Minister can move a little further, especially on enforcement. He and the House will

  39
  know that old axiom that, for evil to succeed, it is enough that good men and women do nothing. I hope that the House will not make that mistake.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: With you in the Chair, Madam Speaker, I moved a new clause to the Public Order Bill in Standing Committee G on April 10 1986, which would have created an offence of racial harassment. We debated the new clause on that day and received a sympathetic response from the then Minister, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G Shaw). He offered us talks on the subject to find out whether we could agree an approach.
  However, the talks did not result in our finding a satisfactory way to deal with the matter, which has remained a festering sore during the eight years since, as it was before that date, which was why I moved the new clause, as the official representative of Her Majesty's Opposition in the Standing Committee.
  The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) spoke about sending a message. Although this is a specific new clause with specific provisions, nevertheless, apart from the specific provisions, which I support entirely, another reason why I wish the new clause to be added to the Bill is that the House of Commons should send a message to the members of ethnic minority communities, of whom I regard myself as one, that Parliament considers crimes with a racial element as even more intolerable than other crimes.
  All crimes, by definition, are to be objected to. Those who commit them are to be pursued and, where appropriate, punished, severely if necessary. But crimes related to the race, ethnic origin or religion of a victim are very different from crimes which relate to the vulnerability of a person or to the property of a person that a criminal wishes to take away from the victim.
  4.30 pm
  The victims of crimes of racial harassment are not attacked because they are rich—or poor but nevertheless have property that can be taken. They are attacked, they become the victims of crime, simply because they are black, come from an Asian community or are Jewish, or for some other reason relating to the uncontrollable factor of their birth, rather than, if I may put it this way, because of their eligibility as victims in possessing property that somebody else wishes to take away from them.
  It is a peculiarly odious kind of crime. It is the reason why, if one may extrapolate, the apartheid regime in South Africa was so odious: it was based on racial discrimination. It is the reason why ethnic cleansing in Bosnia is so odious: the victims there are victims simply because of their religion. It is an issue to which it is time the House addressed itself in the most specific form. The House scarcely needs telling that there are far too many examples of racial harassment and victimisation, and far too many crimes committed against individuals and families simply because of their ethnic origin.
  A little while ago, I took a group of Pakistani constituents from the Gorton division to see the chief constable of Manchester because they were so concerned that their wives could not go out shopping safely and their children could not go out to play safely. Problems of that kind occur regularly for my constituents—people who,
  40
  because they come from the Indian sub-continent and for no other reason, are penalised, harassed and attacked. I know of cases where petrol bombs have been put through letter boxes solely because of the victims' ethnic origin.
  Mr. Sumberg: We would all deplore that sort of behaviour as quite dreadful, but the point at issue is that such things are already illegal—already criminal offences. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether prosecutions were brought, people were taken to court and sentences were imposed in relation to those matters. If not, that is a matter of legitimate complaint, but it is a matter of enforcement, and not something relating to the present state of the law.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bury, South, sharing with me, as he does, the Jewish religion, should intervene in that way.
  When I was a child, when anti-semitism was a great deal more overt than it often is now, in Leeds there were people who discriminated against me and other Jews with slogans, calling out, "Dirty Jew!" and insults of that type. In my constituency, my Pakistani constituents have to put up not only with being victims of the type of offence that I have described, but with being verbally insulted because of their ethnic origin, with having graffiti written on walls, and with the accompaniment of the criminal offence by a racial element which aggravates the nature of the offence.
  In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bury, South, some of the offences were pursued; some have resulted in prosecutions, some have not. That is not because the police are in any way remiss. The police do their best, and when they can pursue such offences, they do.
  However, the question is not whether the offenders have been pursued with the full rigour of the law—when they can be, they are. The question is whether the law should have greater rigour. That is what the new clause is about. It is about whether the law should say, "If you attack someone, that is odious, but if you attack someone because they are black or an Asian or Chinese or a Jew, that is even more odious than your attack on them per se." That is my argument, and that is what the new clause says.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: I have been following my right hon. Friend's remarks extremely closely, and agree with them whole-heartedly. Does he agree that one of the problems is that the aspect in which the law is deficient, and which this new clause would cover, is in relation to those crimes that are petty in nature by themselves—petty criminal damage or petty vandalism—but over a period build up into a picture of intolerable harassment, and that many senior police officers say that one needs to tackle that picture with new legislation so that society can express its repugnance for offences of that type?
  Mr. Kaufman: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When we debated inner cities, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), said, as the hon. Member for Bury, South is saying, that to do what we are seeking to do in this new clause would make it more difficult rather than easier to convict; but he completely misunderstands the nature of the new clause. The Under-Secretary of State seemed to imagine that the racial element had to be proved in order to convict. That is not so.

  41
  Our new clause says—this is why it is such a good new clause—that the racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people, "You have committed a crime, and the law of the land as it existed before this Act said that that crime was punishable by such-and-such a sentence, but because you committed that crime, which had a racial concomitant, you shall be punished even more, to teach you and to send a message to the ethnic minority communities that, as they are specially vulnerable, they shall have special protection."
  I am not saying for a moment that there are a huge number of crimes of racial harassment.
  Mr. James Clappison rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to pursue my argument, I will gladly give way to him.
  However many it is, it is too many. Over the years, there have been a considerable number of cases of the kind that I have described involving my Asian constituents. A number of Chinese people in my constituency face a particular problem—perhaps it is a problem in other parts of the country also—because young people congregate around fish and chip shops owned by the Chinese. One Chinese shop owner was murdered in his fish and chip shop, and another constituent has now been driven out of business. Patently racially motivated attacks upon his business are making his life an utter misery. It is utterly intolerable that somebody should be exposed to attacks such as that.
  It is interesting that others are using racial harassment as a basis for policy. Manchester city council makes special provision for rehousing people who are victims of racial harassment. If somebody submits a rehousing application on the basis of racial harassment, that application receives special consideration, and rightly so.
  Through my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, I know of too many instances of crimes committed against people because of their racial and ethnic origin. If we were to incorporate the amendment in the Act, it would be a signal from the House of Commons to all members of ethnic minority communities that Parliament is particularly and separately concerned about crime based on race or religion.
  The Minister who replied to me in the debate eight years ago was sympathetic, but I am afraid that nothing whatever was done about the problem. I very much hope that today hon. Members—regardless of party; it is not a party issue—will agree that it is proper for the House of Commons to send the message, to use the words of the hon. Member for Bury, South, that racial harassment is intolerable. We must do whatever we can to expunge it from our society, and incorporating the new clause in the Bill is a very good way of going down that road.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is speaking for the Opposition in this debate, for adjourning the debate on racial matters the other evening when it might have been concluded. It has enabled a majority of members of the Home Affairs Select Committee to agree to some recommendations which we have tabled as amendments to the legislation.
  The Home Affairs Select Committee believes that racism, in all its forms, is an evil and destructive force in our multiracial society. There is no doubt that it is
  42
  spreading and that it has to be stopped. As the pressures build in the liberated eastern European countries following the break-up of the Soviet empire, so ethnic divisions are building up all over Europe, often resulting in ethnic cleansing and wars. Inevitably, we have seen a substantial increase in the number of refugees travelling from one country to another and immigration to countries which have not seen immigration on such a large scale before.
  So, too, will the pressures of racism inevitably grow and spread to the United Kingdom. The Committee believes that before that happens we in Britain must realise the likely extent of that evil and start to put up our defences as strongly as we can so that the worst excesses at least can be avoided and this nation can maintain its reputation for being tolerant and decent.
  The need for good race relations has always been a primary interest of the Home Affairs Committee and we reported on the matter in 1982, 1986 and 1989. Since then, there have been shocking attacks, murder and violence and the Committee has taken a large amount of evidence from all quarters. We have not yet finalised our report or agreed on all our recommendations, but I am grateful to my colleagues for dealing with this matter with some urgency so that a majority of Committee members, at any rate, have agreed to certain recommendations and therefore amendments to the legislation.
  I shall deal with those recommendations under three headings: racially motivated violence, racial harassment which is less than a violent attack, and incitement to racial hatred by such means as hate mail. With regard to racially motivated violence, it is a question of whether violence that is racially motivated should or should not attract a heavier penalty. Most of us believe that we may be able to deter racist attacks by the threat of greater punishment. Of course, some people say that all attacks are criminal and should be punished whatever the motivation and that separating racial motivation is unnecessary and wrong. This has broadly been the Government's line in the past.
  4.45 pm
  The majority of members of the Home Affairs Committee do not agree with that line. We believe that not only does the identification of racism send the positive signal referred to by the right hon. Member for Gorton to the ethnic minority communities in this country that the law is treating racism seriously, but that an assault motivated by racism is more socially divisive and corrosive of the very fabric of our tolerant society and, for that reason, is itself more serious.
  The courts agree with that thinking, as does the existing law. A judge is allowed to take account of aggravating factors, as well as mitigating factors, in passing sentence and racial motivation is understood to be an aggravating factor. Because of this, some of the amendments would create an obligation to put before the court all evidence of racial motivation.
  The majority of members of the Home Affairs Committee believe that the matter is so serious, and will become increasingly more so, that the present state of the law is simply not enough. We therefore suggest that new clause 127 should create five new offences of racially motivated assault. This would signal even more strongly to the ethnic communities that we intend to treat the matter more seriously through the power to impose a more

  43
  substantial sentence, which is why the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations are in favour of the measure.
  But there is another very important justification. In my view, the police will be likely to search for and find racial motivation only if they are required to do so to fulfil the requirements of a separate offence. Furthermore, if such an offence is to receive a stiffer penalty, a jury should decide whether an attack has been racially motivated. It should not be left to the judge to decide, any more than we leave it to the judge to decide whether the seriousness of an attack satisfies section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or whether it should be a lesser offence under section 20, or an even lesser offence under section 47. A jury should decide the extent of the seriousness of offences of violence.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I am listening with great interest to his argument. Does not the point that he has just made go to the weakness of new clause 13, in that there is a muddle as to whether it creates a new offence?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree that clarity is all-important, particularly if we want to send the right signals to those who would commit racially motivated offences or those who are the unfortunate victims of such offences.
  Once a jury has decided that a racially motivated offence has been committed, the judge must give effect to the jury's verdict. It is less than fair if the decision about whether the evidence is good is left to a judge rather than the jury set up to take precisely that decision. If I were accused of a crime of violence and it was alleged that the crime was racially motivated, I would want the jury to decide that point. I would not want the decision to be taken away from the jury and the judge to be invited to decide whether the evidence that he had heard warranted an increased sentence. If there were no question of an increased sentence, I agree that it would not matter. But an increased sentence because of racial motivation must, in fairness, be decided by a jury.
  That seems to be so self-evident that I find difficulty in dealing with the objections to it. At first, Ministers and others told the Select Committee that a racially motivated offence of violence might prevent conviction because, although the principal matter of violence may be proved, if the racial motivation was not proved, a man who was undoubtedly violent would be acquitted. That problem is simply avoided by charging two counts in the alternative: first, single manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault; and, secondly, racially motivated manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault. The added sentence for a racial attack would be passed only if the jury decided that the racially motivated alternatives applied.
  We were also told that producing such evidence would require more work by the police. Well, should it not? If racism is an evil that is spreading and needs to be stopped, should not the police be encouraged to dig out the evidence that would support their allegation? It will not be difficult for the police to decide whether to charge, as was suggested in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. It will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether the offence is racially motivated. That is what it is
  44
  there for and what it does every day of the week. It should not be excused away on the basis that it would be a burden on the police.
  In any event, if there is a dispute about whether a sentence should be increased because an attack has been racially motivated and the judge is in doubt about the strength of the evidence, he can call for a Newton hearing that will require evidence to be produced so that he can make that judgment. That means that the police must have gone to the effort of finding out whether there was sufficient evidence of racial motivation.
  Mr. Kaufman: What worries me about the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that he seems to fall into the very trap which the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) alleges against new clause 13—that it would be more difficult to convict in the first place under the hon. and learned Gentleman's new clause. He argues that the police would have to delve further in order to obtain evidence that would justify a jury's offering a guilty verdict. New clause 13 says that evidence of the crime should be sufficient to justify a guilty verdict, whereas evidence of racial motivation should be an aggravating element in the sentence.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I cannot immediately find new clause 13, so I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's point. I do not care whose clause supports it, but it must be clear that it is for juries to decide whether there is sufficient evidence of racial motivation. In the first place, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether the police have sufficient evidence of racial motivation—if they have not, an increased sentence should not be imposed because of it.
  If they have, the Crown must prove racial motivation not just on one count in an incident, because I agree that a prosecution may fail if there is only one count with two elements. There must be two offences in the alternative so that the jury can decide, on the basis of evidence, whether an offence is racially motivated. Whether an alternative is put in the indictment will depend on whether the Crown Prosecution Service considers that any evidence of racial motivation sustains account. That is how the logic and practice of the courts would work out.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing himself into a technical corner. It is clearly emerging from the way in which he expounds his new clause that it would be more difficult to convict for a crime of assault unless the crime of assault contains a racial element. It is therefore inherent in his argument that somebody who may have committed a crime of assault may go free because there is insufficient evidence of a racial element.
  That is not so under new clause 13, where evidence that an assault has been committed per se will be sufficient to justify conviction. The merit of our new clause is that if, that evidence having been submitted, there is additional evidence of a racial element, the judge could expand the sentence. That is why our new clause is better than the hon. and learned Gentleman's. However, if our new clause falls, I shall vote for his simply because I want something in the Bill, however inadequate it may be.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have now refreshed my memory about new clause 13. It may confuse the issue. We want a jury to

  45
  convict if it is sure that there was an offence of manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault, and to convict of the alternative offence if it is sure that there was a racially motivated element. Once those two elements are put into one count, the jury will talk the whole count round.
  If it concludes that it is unhappy about the evidence of a racial element, it may rub off on its conclusion about the assault itself. That is why there is merit in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told the Committee about the possibility that a jury would acquit, despite the fact that there was sufficient evidence of an assault.
  I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister to accept this, but those of us who have practised in the courts with jurors for 30 years know that, from time to time, they say, "We are not too sure about the whole of this count," and they drop the lot. So, although new clause 13 is not wrong, it runs a risk that would be avoided by separating the two counts as I have suggested. Moreover, the person convicted of the crime would know that the jury was sure of the racial motivation and had not simply been swept along by the offence itself and thought, "We do not care whether the offence was racially motivated; that person must not go free." In addition, the ethnic community will know, from the separate offence, that the law takes the matter seriously. In those circumstances, the Select Committee on Home Affairs—not all of us, but the majority—decided that an offence of racially motivated attack was justified.
  Mr. Clappison: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  5 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hesitate to give way as I have received a sign that I should speed up and there are two other offences that I want to mention.
  Is there a need for a new offence of racial harassment to deal with the drip, drip, drip effect of constant harassment? The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Commission for Racial Equality, the anti-racist alliance and a number of others all say yes. At present, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 deals with all sorts of harassment, not just racially motivated harassment. However, we were told that there were a number of drawbacks.
  When we visited the racial unit in Plumstead, the police officers told us that it was not always possible, when bringing a charge, for the prosecution to satisfy a court that a person intended his words, behaviour or action to be threatening, abusive, or insulting under the meaning of the Public Order Act. Even if the person was aware that that might be the result, if he did not intend for it to be so, he was not guilty. The police officers suggested that an objective test would be sensible. If a reasonable man would consider that such acts, deeds and words were likely to cause such a result, that should constitute the necessary intent required under the Bill.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I do not want to delay my hon. and learned Friend too long as I know that the House wishes to make progress. However, I think that both my hon. and learned Friend and the police officer to whom he spoke at Plumstead have not
  46
  looked carefully at section 5 of the Public Order Act. It is not a matter of intent, but whether something is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That was how it was put to us. We considered it and recognised that as one of the criticisms.
  A second criticism was made that the offence under section 5 took no account of the seriousness of many of the acts that were taking place, such as the daubing of swastikas, or putting excreta through a door because a person was a Jew, Muslim, Pakistani or Bangladeshi. I shall not list all the particularly repulsive behaviour that is manifestly racially motivated, but does not necessarily call down under the existing law a sentence which responds to its serious nature.
  The third criticism made was that it was an arrestable offence only if the offender repeated his behaviour in the sight of a policeman after a policeman had warned him to stop. The fourth criticism was that the offence attracted a maximum fine of only £1,000. We therefore considered that section 5 was inadequate to deal with the important subject of racial harassment.
  The proof of that lies in the fact that, despite the increase in racial incidents—however many there are, the number has been increasing—there has been no increase in the number of charges brought or convictions recorded. As a result, we decided that it would be sensible to toughen the law, which is the basis of our new clause 100. It takes into account all those matters, particularly the one to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has just alluded.
  Part III of the Public Order Act deals with incitement to racial hatred. The most commonly used sections are 18, which deals with words or displays or behaviour, and covers race hate mail, and section 19, which is intended to deal with publishing or distributing written material. We were told that the amount of racist literature was increasing. In the appendix to its report the Select Committee will publish some examples of the repulsive racist material. I shall not delay matters by referring to them now.
  It is inevitable that, as boundaries come down under the single market, more such filth will cross from countries in Europe to Britain. There were strong criticisms of the working of the present legislation, particularly from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which said that the existing legislation had not proved effective in countering the tide of anti-semitic and other racist literature. It sent us an enormous amount of the sort of literature being circulated.
  Three criticisms were levelled at us about that specific aspect of the Publicx Order Act. The first was that a prosecution could not be instigated without the consent of the Attorney-General. There was a feeling that the Attorney-General sometimes decided that a prosecution should not go ahead for vaguely political reasons—perhaps because it would cause more conflict or distress to do so. Although we had absolutely no reason to think that Attorneys-General had ever made decisions other than perfectly correctly and properly, it seemed to us that there was nothing much to be gained from placing the Attorney-General in the invidious position of having to make such choices.
  The Attorney-General already has many problems on his plate without having to go through the countless number of allegations and make decisions. We saw no reason why the Director of Public Prosecutions, together

  47
  with the Crown Prosecution Service, should not make the decisions in those, as in nearly all other, matters. That was our recommendation and it forms one of our amendments.
  The second criticism was that the incitement to racial hatred provision did not provide a power of arrest. A person who distributes such material by post cannot easily be found. If there is no power of arrest, by the time that the police arrive at the premises from which they think the material is being distributed the birds have fled and all the forensic signs of their culpability have dried up and disappeared.
  We listened to the evidence given to us by a very senior officer at Scotland Yard, Commander Allinson, who was worried about the lack of power of arrest. It seemed to us that if we could provide the power of arrest and the police could act quickly, they could obtain all sorts of forensic evidence that might specifically identify the person responsible. At present the police lack those powers.
  The third criticism involved the subject of intention. There has to be an intention to stir up racial hatred and only an objective test would be likely to result in a sufficient number of prosecutions. That was part of the recommendation contained in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth).
  There were other issues; I shall highlight one that formed the basis of an amendment that we tabled. Under part II of the Public Order Act, senior police officers have the right to impose conditions on, and the Home Secretary has the power to ban, marches, processions and demonstrations if they feel that they might result in serious public disorder, disruption to the life of the community and so on. But the Act does not cover marches and processions involving race hatred. Therefore, the police felt that they were not always able to respond to the community's concerns about marches by right-wing groups which did not, perhaps, result in violence, but which contributed to the climate of fear and hatred among the ethnic minority. Therefore, we have recommended that the Government amend the Public Order Act so that it covers a march or procession invoking the spread of race hatred.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs has attempted to be constructive. If we are right and racism is spreading, is serious and can only get worse, we must do something more about it than the existing law, which has been inadequate. We have come forward with our constructive proposals, to which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The House wants to make progress, and as I must say much in response to speeches made today and before the Easter recess, I hope that it may help if I intervene now.
  Since we adjourned this debate before Easter, there have been additional amendments from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and some of his colleagues on the Select Committee. I was interested to read them and I listened with care to my hon. and learned Friend's remarks.
  I am sorry that we could not have the Select Committee's report before debating this batch of amendments. It is the Committee's evidence, thoughts and findings rather than its drafting skills from which the Government would have liked to benefit before the debate.
  48
  I hoped—as I know the Select Committee had intended, before it was sidetracked on to another issue—that the report would be published before Christmas.
  The Government always take what the Select Committee has to say with great seriousness—doubly so when it involves a difficult subject such as this, which the Select Committee studied for more than a year. Obviously it would be much better for us to reach our own final conclusions after studying its report rather than before.
  I am glad that one amendment in this batch—new clause 97—gives the police power of immediate arrest in cases of incitement to racial hatred, which chimes with our own thinking.
  The Government tabled their own version in new clause 125. It is drafted differently and I believe more suitably, but achieves the same effect. It will enable the police to pursue more effectively not just those who distribute, but, through them, those who produce the appalling material on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Marshall) focused our attention in his Adjournment debate before Easter, and against which, inter alia, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) directed his private Member's Bill. I am pleased to meet one of their particular objectives now.
  Before I turn to new clause 13 and the other amendments selected, I will say something about the overall statistics for racial violence and racial harassment—about which the hon Members for Walsall (Mr. Winnick) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and in particular the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who provided a revealing breakdown of such incidents recorded by the Metropolitan police, spoke.
  When I gave evidence to the Select Committee last July, I made an estimate of 130,000 to 140,000 racial incidents a year, based on data obtained from the 1992 British crime survey. Grossing up the responses from that survey sample for the total ethnic minority population gave that estimate of the number of crimes and threats in 1991 thought by the victim to have been racially motivated.
  Both the survey and police data such as those quoted by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggest that only a minority of incidents involved physical attacks—and, of those, a much smaller proportion were serious. The rest were made up of abusive language, criminal damage and other unpleasant behaviour.
  I well understand why hon. Members contrast that estimate of 130,000 incidents with the 8,000 incidents recorded by the police, but the work done suggests that perhaps 50,000 incidents were reported to the police but not recorded as racial, either because the victims did not mention it as such or the police failed to note that they did.
  Clearly, it is not possible to know how many of those crimes resulted in prosecutions, but they will have been dealt with on the same basis as similar crimes not felt to be racially motivated. All offences of violence are obviously priorities for the police and are pursued with vigour, but for offences at the other end of the scale, there may be no accessible evidence to identify and successfully prosecute the perpetrator of non-violent harassment—even if it is reported, which it generally is not.
  The racial attacks group is currently specifically examining the way in which the police compile their statistics. We need them to be as full and accurate as possible and to be compiled on the same basis between

  49
  forces. We also want to encourage other agencies to use the same categorisation, so we shall know that we are comparing like with like.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: Not at this moment, because I have not gone deep into my remarks. I shall do so later, if the hon. Gentleman still wishes to make a point.
  The British crime survey did not show an increase in perceived racial incidents as a proportion of all crime between 1988 and 1992, when the questions were first asked. Whether there has been an increase between 1992 and 1994 should be revealed in the next edition of the survey, which is due to be published later this year.
  The apparent sharp increase in racial crime recorded by the police between 1988 and 1992 can be explained, at least in part, by increased efforts by the police to improve their monitoring and recording procedures. I refer in particular to the guidance issued to all forces in 1991. As a result, all police forces have adopted the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racial incident. Racial motivation is flagged up in the report of any incident in which the police officer, victim or any third party believes there to have been a racial element. That certainly broadens the definition and brings more offences within its scope.
  It is also obvious that the more successful the police in encouraging reporting, the more the number of incidents recorded will increase, without there necessarily being any underlying increase in the number of offences committed. Does the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) wish to intervene now?
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Vaz: Unfortunately, the Minister is using arguments that he used before, in speaking of classifications, categorisations and definitions. Does he accept that racial attacks are occurring on the streets of Britain and are increasing? Does he accept that they are affecting the lives of many black and Asian people? The Government should not hide behind delaying tactics. It is vital that something is done urgently to protect those people.
  Mr. Lloyd: The Government are hiding behind nothing. The Government want to be effective, which is why I am trying to lay out the best information that we have. I do not deny that there are a great number of attacks. I shall refer to that point shortly. Perhaps it was unnecessary to give way to the hon. Gentleman
  I do not rule out in particular that publicity and counter-demonstrations in the wake of the British National party victory in Tower Hamlets provoked more mindless thugs to indulge in more racial thuggery. I am sure that, for a long time, ethnic minority communities and some sections of the white community have suffered racial attacks and harassment. What has changed is the declining readiness of those sections of the community to tolerate such treatment, and the growing interest and concern of the rest of the community.
  I am certain that the new clauses cover serious matters and I return exactly to the point that the hon. Member for Leicester, East was trying to press. I do not believe that there is any real difference of view between both sides of the House as to our abhorrence of racial violence and our recognition of the hurt and fear that racial harassment can
  50
  bring to individuals, families and communities. Nor do I believe, after reading the new clauses with care, and having listened with interest to what was said in support of them today and previously, that there is any difference between us on the range of violent or cruel behaviour that the law should punish.
  All violence is criminal, whether the assailant and victim are the same colour or of different colours, and whether the motive is racial hatred, anger at women or contempt for the weakness of the elderly and disabled. I am glad that the Opposition, in their new clause 13, no longer propose to distinguish between violent crimes—at least as far as the offence is concerned. There is nothing in new clause 13 about a separate offence of racial violence, and that is progress.
  I am sorry that good sense is not carried over into the subsections on harassment. Again, there appears to be no real difference between us on what antisocial behaviour should be covered by the law. In fact, the very words of subsection 2(1)(a) are lifted directly from the Public Order Act 1986.
  However, subsection 2(1)(b) seeks to go further and specifically adds the words
  "trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant … is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress."
  I do not believe that it would do much for race relations to create a new offence that has the potential of new clauses 13 and 90 to render certain trespass and nuisance behaviour criminal only when carried out on racial grounds. I do not believe that that would do anything for anyone.
  In practical terms, it would be difficult to imagine examples in which such actions could be proven to be racially motivated, unless there was an explicit racial overtone to the behaviour. Simply walking across a garden would not be sufficient without, say, accompanying abuse or implied threat. Of course, if a person were to be verbally abusive, insulting or act in a threatening or harassing way, regardless of whether they were trespassing or not, section 5 of the Public Order Act is already there under which such behaviour may be prosecuted.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has something in mind that is not covered by existing law. If not, I have to say to her that, although her new clause gives the first impression of a tough new extension of the law, it will do nothing better to protect, the victims of racial offences. If she does have something in mind that is not covered by existing law, I would genuinely like to consider it. But where I especially disagree with these new clauses is that they seek to do for harassment what, as I observed approvingly, Opposition Members wisely no longer seem to seek to do for violence: create a specific and separate offence of racial harassment.
  It is always hard to prove motive—harder, I suspect, than many hon. Members allow. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) was right about that. If that is so and the court finds the racial motive unproven beyond reasonable doubt, should there be a conviction for a standard offence, the judge, in sentencing, will not be able to take racial motivation into account and will have limited scope for taking into account any other racial element.
  I fear that writing into the law an additional penalty for racial motive, as in new clauses 13, 50, 89 and 127, may have the opposite effect in an uncomfortably large number of cases to that intended by those who tabled the new clauses. It makes even less sense to do that, as there is

  51
  already a duty on judges and magistrates to take into account the aggravating circumstances surrounding an offence. Indeed, that was written into the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It obviously includes racial hostility and the vulnerability of the victims.
  It is plain, both from judges' summing. up and the penalties handed down in a growing number of cases, that the courts are taking the racial element firmly into account. The recommendation for minima of 22 and 25 years for the racial murders of Fiaz Mirza, Saddik Dada and Mohammed Sarwar show that the courts are prepared to act when the evidence is there.
  Ms Ruddock: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying. Is he able to tell the House how many of the offences that have been prosecuted under section 5 of the Public Order Act have been found to be on racial grounds? Does he have the figures? Will he tell us how effective the current law is?
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot, but I would like to be able to. We are currently looking to see how that might be managed so that, as I said earlier, all cases would be flagged up so that we know what happens to them. We could then create those figures at the end of the year. Because there is no separate offence of racial harassment, those figures do not exist at the moment, so I cannot say how many of the cases were overtly racial and in how many of them that factor was taken into account by the court in sentencing.
  The racial attacks group, which includes the Commission for Racial Equality and the Crown Prosecution Service as well as the police, is looking at that so that we can provide such information. I do not believe, however, whatever information it produces, that these matters are best handled by legislation, not merely or primarily for the reasons that I have already given, but because of the messages that it will send to the world outside—the very point that was made by the right hon. Member for Gorton.
  Mr. Kaufman: I suspect that, somewhere in a pigeon hole in the Home Office, there is a brief for Ministers to use on this occasion. It was also used by the former Minister of State on 10 April 1986 to reject the proposals of the Opposition at that time. No doubt if the Opposition have to vote with Conservative Members and are not successful today, it will be fished out on a future occasion, too.
  The Minister has not responded to the prime point of the argument. He says that judges are, of course, at liberty to take into account a racial element when considering a sentence. Being at liberty is very different from being required to take into account a racial element in a crime. Parliament needs to send a signal to members of the ethnic minorities in this country that Parliament has a special concern for them. I hope that, before the Minister sits down, he will respond to that argument, which so far he has failed to do.
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman made two points. The first was the familiarity of some of the arguments that I use. I suggest to him that a good argument retains its freshness, even over the years. On his second point, if he reflects back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, he will see that the courts are not simply at liberty to take into account what they want, but that they are required to take in fully
  52
  all the circumstances that relate to the case which indicate aggravating features. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to refresh himself on that.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I must make some progress. If there is a little more time later, I will come back. I want to say a little more about this point.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
  I realise that many hon. Members support a separate offence of racial violence or harassment because of the message that they believe that it would send. They believe that it would reassure ethnic minorities that such crimes against them are taken very seriously. But I suspect that there would be a reaction if, having led them to believe that the law was being strengthened, it was discovered to be neither broader nor more effective and unable to catch a wider range of racially motivated offences.
  To be fair, from my strictures I should except new clause 100, which has been tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, which would replace section 5 of the Public Order Act. It has the great merit of being colour blind. But my approval ends there, for it would make a criminal offence of any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to becaused harassment, alarm or distress—so a person who lights a bonfire whose smoke distresses their neighbour, or lets their dog bark incessantly or stray into their neighbour's property and damages it, could be committing a criminal offence. It could, I suppose, apply to intrusive building work.
  What is more, the requirement in the current section 5 of the Public Order Act for the conduct to be intentional, or at least for the person engaging in it to have known that harassment, alarm or distress were likely to result, has been deleted. That was not in fact the test that my hon. and learned Friend and the officer whom he met in Plumstead believed was the test in section 5 of the Public Order Act. Such unneighbourly stresses can, I know, be extremely aggravating, but I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend had them in mind and, if he had, whether he intended to be so sweeping in his extension of the criminal law where the civil law has traditionally provided the remedy.
  Perhaps it was that kind of behaviour that the hon. Member for Deptford will tell me that she had in mind for new clause 13(2)(1), but not when it was caused by accident—because it is confined to race—or straight malice, but only when it was racially motivated.
  But my fundamental criticism of new clause 13 and others is not that they are generally ineffectual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South said they were, in providing extra protection—they are. My criticism is that I do not believe that Parliament should construct two categories of harassment any more than two categories of violence. It must be wrong to create the impression that there are extra protections for ethnic minorities that are not available for, say, the elderly and the disabled.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall give way in a moment, but to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
  The danger is particularly well illustrated by the ill-judged subsection (2) of new clauses 13 and 127, which would require an additional penalty for racial violence which may exceed the maximum penalty otherwise prescribed for that offence. Indeed, under new clause 127, the assailant in a racially motivated common assault could get a sentence 10 times the maximum for any other common assault.
  Apart from giving the court power in new clause 13 to impose an additional penalty beyond the maximum set by Parliament for the offence—a departure from every other area of our law where maxima are always enshrined in statute and set to allow for the worst possible example of a particular offence—these new clauses would send a clear message that an assault on the disabled, the elderly or a small child, however cowardly or brutal, could never be punished as severely as it was possible to punish a racial attack.
  Mr. Maclennan: I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that the rights of ethnic minorities are considered under our international commitments—through the European convention on human rights—as matters especially to be protected against discriminatory behaviour. Motivation is also something which the English common law recognises as significant in determining the appropriateness of a penalty; it is what distinguishes certain types of homicide from murder. It is bizarre that he should say as a matter of principle that the Government are setting their face against treating racially motivated attacks as different in kind from other forms of attack. Surely that is mistaken.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not saying that they are not sometimes worse than other attacks, and I am certainly not saying that the courts should not take that into account. Indeed, I spent some time saying that the courts did take that fact into account and that it was their job to do so. If race was an aggravating factor, it should be implicit in the way in which the court determines the sentence.
  However, I am saying that to give a specific additional sentence for a racial attack when there could be worse attacks on, for example, the elderly, the disabled or children, and on others who are not disabled, elderly or young, sends the wrong message. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and some other Opposition Members cannot understand that. The sense of fairness of the community as a whole is quite different from how the hon. Gentleman perceives it. I do not want, and I was sure that no hon. Member would want, to send such a crudely divisive message to the country.
  We do not want to bring about circumstances in which a mugged pensioner could say, however unfairly, that if he had been black, his assailant would have had to receive a much heavier sentence, or in which a victimised family, suffering regular harassment from neighbours, could say, "Of course, if we had been a different colour, the police would have had to do something." That would be doubly foolish when the basic reach of the law, certainly where violence is concerned, remains the same under new clause 13 and others, whether or not there is a racial motive.
  54
  So why lead the public to believe otherwise? Why introduce a potent source of misunderstanding and resentment? I suspect that to do so was considered an easy way for the Opposition to respond apparently decisively to ethnic minority fears and the appalling experiences that so many have indeed suffered.
  I do not impugn the integrity of the hon. Members who have put their names to the new clauses or who have spoken in support of them. I am sure that they are utterly sincere in their desire to provide better protection for ethnic minorities and to build the good race relations on which it must finally depend—it is their wisdom and good sense that I question.
  Although new clause 13 and others would no doubt give immediate encouragement to ethnic minorities, it would surely bring cynicism in its train when they began to notice that it secured few, if any, extra prosecutions, especially when it was clear that the price had been to sour race relations and to provide a handle to those who like to argue that the law gives black people a privileged position anyway.
  Mr. Vaz: Who are those people?
  Mr. Lloyd: There are plenty of them, alas. If the hon. Gentleman has not met them, he has led an extraordinarily sheltered life. A number of them voted for the British National party in Tower Hamlets at the previous local election.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Of course my right hon. Friend has a point and it is one which should be heard, but is it not also a reason for dismantling all our race relations legislation, whether civil or criminal, because the effect of that is presumably to create exactly the same reactions as he says are so abhorrent to us now?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is of course one of the downsides, but, as my hon. and learned Friend will know, without such laws against discrimination, discrimination would not be unlawful. However, harassment and violence are unlawful, so he is not comparing like with like.
  While I am waxing so critical of the content of the new clauses, I shall mention briefly what is not in them and, despite what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said in her intervention, something that is certainly not there but which would genuinely benefit ethnic minorities and others if it were. The Government believe that the one aspect that the law does not sufficiently cover is low-level, repetitive abuse, name-calling or nuisance which as a one-off might be no more than a minor legal breach and on which no court is likely to come down with great severity, but which cumulatively is deeply hurtful, building fear, anxiety and distress, blighting the lives of individuals and families and poisoning relationships between different sections of the community.
  It is in dealing with such persistent harassment, which can cause such misery, that I believe the law needs to be extended with appropriately severe penalties. I have said so many times in recent months, including at the Dispatch Box, but it is not easy to formulate an amendment that we can be sure would focus effectively on the offence without unwelcome side effects. I am, however, confident that we can produce such an amendment and the Government would have liked to do so on Report, but the complexities have proved too great.
  Mrs. Roche rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon Lady wants to tell me that new clause 13 covers this point, she can do so and then I shall continue.
  Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. New clause 13(2)(1)(a) refers to the use of
  "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour …or … any writing, sign or other visible representation"
  that is abusive or insulting, which is exactly the type of behaviour to which I referred in my intervention. We are talking about the swastika daubed on a wall, threatening behaviour against a black family or a car aerial being vandalised. New clause 13 seeks to deal with such harassment.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady was not listening when I said that the words that she has just cited admiringly are already law—they have been lifted wholly from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am trying to tell the hon Lady that those words are insufficient to deal with cumulative low-level harassment which causes so much harm and has such a corrosive effect.
  Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I listened very carefully to what he was saying. New clause 13 would tighten existing legislation and enable it to deal with exactly the sort of incident to which I referred. There has been a failure on the part of the Home Office to listen properly to what is being said not only by Opposition Members but by some of the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Lloyd: The failure is that of the hon. Lady to read what is on the statute book.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I cannot give way.
  I must stress that the improved law would not be confined to racial harassment but would extend to other forms of harassment, although ethnic minorities may be the chief beneficiaries. I should be happy if that were so as I am quite sure that they are the chief sufferers. The important point would be that the same protection would exist for any repeatedly harassed individual or family, whatever the motive for the harassment.
  Mr. Marshall rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way as I have already done so too often in view of the time available.
  I share with all hon. Members who have spoken their patent desire to make the law work more effectively. The chief impediment to prosecution is lack of evidence which will stand up in court, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South. That must be a matter for the police and local agencies working effectively together, and it is why earlier this year I was happy to speak in support of the CRE campaign urging victims to report incidents and, just as important, witnesses to come forward.
  However, it is clear that the Public Order Act is used to very much greater effect in some spheres than in others. That is why the racial attacks group is also looking to see what can be learnt from those areas about the way in which good practice could be applied generally. It is not spectacular work, but it will prove far more helpful to
  56
  minority communities than any of the new clauses before us today, however impressive they may sound when dolled up in a superficial and self-indulgent press release.
  As I said earlier, making the distribution of material that is likely to stir up racial hatred an arrestable offence will help the police to get to the source of the material and I hope that the House will support amendment No. 125. It follows that I have immediate sympathy for those sections of new clause 13 and new clause 100, which would provide the police with an immediate power of arrest for harassment. However, on reflection, I am afraid that I am not yet convinced that it would on balance help to do so.
  Section 5 of the Public Order Act, to which the new clause relates, is used in a variety of circumstances for dealing with a broad spectrum of abusive and threatening behaviour in public places, not only racial harassment. It could, for example, be employed by the police when they have been abused and harassed by demonstrators. At present, the police must give the demonstrator a warning. I am not sure that the Opposition would want to do away with the necessity for that warning and perhaps find that many of those arrested turned out to be black or white protestors who were perhaps protesting over the BNP book shop in Welling. I am not convinced that the requirement for an opportunity to cool off is not useful all round, but I do not rule out the new clause. It needs further and wider discussion, which it will receive when the Select Committee is able to publish its report.
  Again, I understand why new clause No. 89, spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), queries the role of the Attorney-General, whose approval is necessary before a prosecution can be brought under part III of the Public Order Act for stirring up racial hatred. As some hon. Members have observed, he has given his go-ahead to only 14 prosecutions, implying that, somehow, he has been preventing many more from being brought.
  That is certainly not so. Only 19 cases have been referred to him and the ones with which he did not proceed were disallowed on the same grounds by which other prosecutions are denied—two because of insufficient evidence and three on public interest grounds. At least two of those cases were dismissed because of the age of the person who was alleged to have committed the offence. Again, I am quite sure that the lack of evidence on the identity of the authors of the racial material which would stand up in court is responsible for the small number of prosecutions in that area, perhaps because so much comes anonymously through the post or is imported.
  There are other broader issues relating to the scope of part III of the Act which were raised by some Asian groups, by the Tabachnik report and most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley in his Bill. They involve important questions about where the balance should be struck between free speech, public order and group sensibilities. They are beyond the scope of the new clauses and thus the debate, but they are an area to which we must and will return when the Select Committee unveils its remedies.
  Finally, in new clause 98, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and some colleagues on the Select Committee seek to strengthen section 12 of the Public Order Act which deals with processions. At present, a police officer may place conditions on a march if he believes that it may cause serious disorder, damage or disruption. I cannot see that it helps to add the ability to put conditions on a march on racial, religious or ethnic

  57
  grounds, as subsection (1) of my hon. and learned Friend's new clause would. It gives the police no new power or new guidance.
  Subsection (2) of the new clause, however, would insert the stirring up of racial hatred as an additional criterion for imposing conditions on a demonstration. Again, it would add little more to the way in which the present law is being used. The police already use their powers to impose conditions on marches for example, to re-route them where necessary away from areas where large Asian populations live—not on the grounds of stirring up racial hatred, but for straightforward public order grounds.
  It could be difficult to argue—perhaps it has occurred to my hon. and learned Friend—that a march of Nazi skinheads down Brick lane would stir the local population to racial hatred, but it may well cause them fear and distress and provoke angry and violent reactions. That is why the 1986 Act, with the effects of some demonstrations on ethnic minorities clearly in mind, introduced criteria to ensure that individuals can go about their business free from intimidation.
  It seems that the police have the professional expertise and the powers under the current law to make the operational decisions needed. To ask them to assess the likelihood of racial hatred being stirred up would be much more difficult and subjective and would not, for the reasons that I have given, be of much help. Of course, where those taking part in a demonstration incite racial hatred, the police may take action under part III of the Act. On that matter, in due course, I would again like to see the considered opinion of the Select Committee on how marches may be better managed as part of the wider questions of group defamation and the stirring up of racial hatred in a society which values freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate.
  I do not believe that new clause 98 would alter that balance as it would not give the police any useful additional powers. If it did anything, it would confuse the basis on which they are properly required to make an operational judgment as to the impact of a march on public order.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: As I have been talking of my hon. and learned Friend, I shall give way.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: We were asked to add those conditions by the police. If they do not understand the present law, what on earth is the likelihood of the ethnic minority communities in Britain understanding it?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend has spoken to some policemen. I would like to see the informed, complete, official response to the suggestions of the police and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Of course, we shall get that with the Select Committee report.
  We have a limited time for the debate. I hope that I have managed to persuade the proposers of the new clauses that it would be better not to press them to a vote. If I have not, I must ask my hon. Friends to vote against them, except, of course, new clause 125, which I trust that the whole House will accept with acclamation.
  5.45 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: I rise to support new clause 13. The Minister asked why we should single out racial attacks for special legislative treatment—treatment that is not applied to attacks on disabled or elderly people. We should do so because nobody ever builds a mass political movement out of smashing those groups' windows—or out of spitting on them, assaulting them or killing them in their millions. In the lifetime of some hon. Members present in the Chamber, mass political movements in Europe have been built with the building blocks of individual acts of racial violence.
  A responsible Government who were aware of the patterns of rising racial and fascist violence in Europe would see the need to send a message from Parliament to individual racists and fascists and to those terrorising black and Asian people saying that racism is a phenomenon—a social and political manifestation—that our society will not tolerate. Racial attacks ought to be singled out in the way set out in the new clause because of what they represent politically—a threat to the stability of society that no amount of individual attacks on elderly, poor or disabled people could ever represent. I am surprised that the Minister, who is normally a man of some sensitivity and insight, cannot see that simple point.
  Britain's black and Asian communities wish that even at this late stage the Government will change their mind on the issue of racial harassment. They want to see the law changed first and foremost because no amount of legal quibbling and juggling with figures can bring home to people who do not experience racial attacks the fear and terror that individual acts of racial violence and low-level harassment can cause.
  The Minister said that few acts of racial harassment are acts of violence. Tell that to Asian women who are trapped in their flats week in, week out because they are frightened to leave—because they are spat on, because they are shouted at and because they have graffiti on their doors. It is all very well to produce figures that say that those are not acts of violence, but for a woman who speaks little English and is frightened to leave her house for weeks, for months, for years, the situation is just as threatening as any individual act of violence.
  Black and Asian people want new clause 13 to be accepted because we believe that many people underestimate the effect on individual communities of the fear of racial harassment and attacks. We want new clause 13 to be accepted because one of the problems with racial harassment is getting different communities in different places to report it. In my local Jewish community in Stamford Hill there is great fear and reluctance to report acts of racial violence to the authorities—and that goes for many different types of community in many different areas.
  If Parliament made new clause 13 law, that would give the different ethnic minorities increased confidence to come forward and report acts of violence.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that while there is a sort of permissive element in whether the police report or treat an incident as a racially motivated crime, many people are afraid to report such incidents to the police? Does not too much depend on the discretion of individual police officers on desk duty at a particular time? The advantage

  59
  of our new clause is that it would force all police officers to take the issue of racial violence seriously, and thus give communities greater confidence in reporting the sort of horrors that my hon. Friend has rightly described.
  Ms Abbott: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Britain's black and Asian communities want not crocodile tears from the Minister about how terrible such attacks are, but a recognition of the plight of tens of thousands of people, whether as communities or as individuals. Individuals can be trapped on estates, with one person being the only member of a particular minority. Those people want recognition of their plight. They want legislative action. They want an acknowledgement from the Government that individual acts are not merely random acts of violence, however reprehensible those may be, but represent the building blocks of a political tide. Unless the politicians of this country stand up against that tide it could bring to this country the sort of political movements and the sort of violence that we are now seeing in the rest of Europe.
  Ms Ruddock: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again.
  When I opened the debate on the Opposition's new clause 13, on 28 March, I was mindful of two things. The first was the fact that the overwhelming weight of the evidence on racial attacks and harassment given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs was supportive of Labour's proposals in the new clause. The second was that every ministerial statement on the subject of racially motivated crime had displayed an extreme reluctance to legislate effectively on the issue.
  My expectations both of the Minister and of the position of the Select Committee have been met in full today. It is clear that in tabling their new clauses members of the Select Committee have responded to community concerns and to expert opinion such as that of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which agreed with us that a range of new measures was required and should be tabled for Report.
  Dame Jill Knight: I want there to be no misunderstanding about the fact that the Home Affairs Committee was divided six to four on the matter.
  Mr. Corbyn: Name the four.
  Dame Jill Knight: For various reasons that I shall not go into now, four of us strongly disagreed with the wisdom of what is now being suggested.
  Ms Ruddock: Nothing that the hon. Lady has said changes the fact that there was a majority in favour. I was speaking especially of the expert evidence given to the Select Committee.
  The range of measures tabled by those holding the majority view on the Select Committee, and the range of measures that we and other Opposition Members have tabled provide for enhanced penalties to be applied on proof of racial motivation in the commission of violent offences, and for the creation of new harassment and incitement offences.
  I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) that if the racial motivation test is
  60
  applied, that motive will be sought by the police and by the courts, and it will be found where it exists. That is what is so essential about the test of racial motivation. That is why it should be mandatory.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton believes, as we do, that racial incidents have increased. The Minister did much to try to rubbish that notion, and to try to talk down the extent of the problem and the pain that it causes. He cited in evidence the British crime survey, but that deals with two racial groups in particular, and does not even consider racial motivation in offences committed against members of the Jewish community. There is no doubt in the minds of the experts dealing with the issue that such attacks and incidents are on the increase, and are very serious.
  I further remind the Minister that other surveys have suggested that only one in 20 racial incidents is reported. I remind him that there are believed to have been 14 racially motivated murders in this country over the past two years. Yet when I asked a parliamentary question about homicide one of his ministerial colleagues told me that the police are
  "not specifically requested to note whether they consider racial motivation to be a factor".—[0fficial Report, 7 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 24.]
  That is a disgrace. If the Minister feels that the huge number of racial incidents cannot be tested for the purposes of record surely at least the most serious violent offences should be categorised as to whether ethnic and racial motivations were a factor.
  I remind the Minister that we do not know what the clear-up rates for racial incidents are. We do not know how effective the present law is, although most of us believe that it is entirely deficient. In another parliamentary answer I was told that there were
  "no plans to require the police to publish clear-up rates for racial incidents".—[Official Report, 11 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 414.]
  The Minister's speech was a disgrace. There is a wide consensus on the range of new measures needed to deal with the rising incidence of racial attacks and harassment, yet the Minister gave us the most minimal of responses. Of course we shall support new clause 125, but he spoke about a new offence of persistent racial harassment. That is a totally inadequate response to all the evidence that has come before both the Select Committee and his own committee, and the evidence that has emerged in the Standing Committee and during the earlier debates on Report.
  We may ask why the Government are bothering to do anything at all, as they deny all the evidence and expertise brought before them. I can tell the House why, because I have here a letter sent by the Home Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal, which says that there has been
  "intense public and Parliamentary pressure … for changes in the law"
  on racially motivated crimes.
  The letter mentions the pressure that the Government are under not only from the official Opposition but from their own Back Benchers, and describes the Home Secretary's concern
  "that … the Government's position is likely to become untenable and at the very least open us to enormous criticism, especially once the urgent measures relating to stop and search powers I intend to introduce in the Bill become public. The proposed new powers are already being described in the minority press as recreating the discredited "sus" law and there are serious implications for both community relations and to public order if we are unable to present any positive counter-balance. It is

  61
  therefore important that the Government take the initiative on racial crimes if it is to counteract the belief amongst ethnic minority communities that we do not take their concerns equally seriously."
  That is why the Government have proposed that most minimal of responses—because they are concerned about mounting pressures, and are deeply embarrassed because they have not been able to satisfy their own Back Benchers. More importantly, I believe that they understand that concern will be caused by the proposed new stop and search powers—concern that could properly be met by accepting the proposals of the official Opposition. Cynically, the Government seek to counteract the concerns of the ethnic minority communities, of which they are aware, by making the minimal proposal of a persistent harassment offence. That is a cynical move by the Government. It is totally unacceptable and it flies in the face of all the evidence that has been brought before them.
  The letter does not try to persuade the Cabinet and the Prime Minister that racially motivated crime is on the increase, that it is serious and pernicious and that it needs to be dealt with effectively. It is a defensive, purely party political document and one that the Government, and the Home Secretary in particular, will regret writing.
  It is absolutely unacceptable that the Government will not respond to new clause 13 in a more effective and sympathetic way. It is even more unacceptable that they cannot respond effectively to the new clauses that have been tabled by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on an all-party basis and with our support. The Government will remain deserving of our utmost criticism and condemnation and will continue to be under real pressure to deal with the matter in another place.
  As Labour Members and so many of the Minister's colleagues have said, there is a need to do much more, but the Minister has not gone forward in any way to meet that need. He could not have heard the position spelt out more clearly than it was by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, who spoke to no fewer than five amendments dealing with racially motivated crime—or, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who spoke so movingly about the horrific offence of racial violence and racial harassment.
  6 pm
  Today, the Minister seemed to suggest that racial harassment would be a crime or would really hurt people only if it was repetitive. I tell him that once is enough: people who have been spat at, or who have had their homes daubed, or who have had violence perpetrated against them because of their colour or creed know that there is a need to strengthen the laws of this country.
  The Minister says that the proposed measures would be divisive—that people will simply say that they would have a better deal from the law if they were black. Does he not appreciate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who aptly described the way in which this is a matter of organised violence against individuals on the basis of colour or creed? Does he not accept that a person who has been the subject of harassment or violent attack which is motivated on racial grounds is a victim twice over: once of the crime—the violence or whatever—and once of racial motivation? That is a double burden that must be borne by the victim and it is something for which a double penalty is appropriate.
  62
  We are not satisfied in any way by the Minister's explanation of why the new clauses tabled by the Select Committee should not be accepted. We will press them to a vote. More important, the Minister has not appreciated the strength of feeling and the weight of evidence on the issue. We shall pursue the issue wherever we must if the Minister continues to fail the ethnic minority communities with his attitude today.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: The way in which the debate has proceeded makes it absolutely clear that all hon. Members are united about one thing: their detestation of racism and any form of anti-semitism. It is also obvious that initially many hon. Members welcomed the clause tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) for the obvious reason that many of us support it and there was unity of feeling about it with regard to my Racial Hatred and Violence Bill a few weeks ago. But life in politics moves on: a week in politics is a long time.
  Over the Easter recess, we heard that the Government will go forward, although we have not heard any details of the proposals. I hope that the matter is not regarded as one of petty party political bickering. The issue is too important for party political bickering. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) accepted that persistent violence, persistent harassment and persistent incidents created an offence and a situation that needs to be dealt with. Apparently, that is what the Government will deal with—at least according to a leak last week.
  Before hon. Members deride what I am saying, they should hear that what the Government intend to do is much more, much deeper and much more effective than new clause 13. Although we heard those good intentions derided a few moments ago, there is no doubt at all that Tory Members are deeply against any form of racism and that the measure brought forward—as we imagine from the leak that we read on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Friday—will go much further.
  Although initially Tory Members could perhaps be persuaded by new clause 13, on further consideration, and having heard what the Government will do, I feel that the new clause should be abandoned. Hon. Members should abstain from voting on new clause 13 and support what the Government propose.
  Mr. Vaz: When the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) got up to speak, I thought that he would support new clause 13 because it is in keeping with the private Member's Bill that he introduced last year, of which I am a co-sponsor. He recognises, as Labour Members recognise, that it is important for the House to make a decision today that will send out to the black and Asian communities the message that we care about their plight in the current circumstances.
  I was not going to speak in the debate until I heard the Minister's speech. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) I have a soft spot for the Minister, having dealt with him for many years when he was the immigration Minister. I say nothing more than "soft spot". Today, Labour Members who know the Minister and who have had dealings with him will be astonished by his extraordinary attack on the black and Asian community in Britain. Here is the Minister responsible for community relations. He is responsible for going to the black and Asian community week after week

  63
  —I have been at many engagements with him—and telling the community how much the Government support them. Today, he came to the Dispatch Box and put to the House this choice: we either support the white pensioner or the Asian mother. That is exactly what he said today.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I was simply saying that the law should not distinguish; it should take in the circumstances of the particular case.
  Mr. Vaz: Here is the Minister who wriggled throughout his speech. He has already had a Select Committee report that was produced five years ago under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). I know about that report because I served on the Home Affairs Committee. Five years ago, the Committee took a great deal of evidence on the issue.
  What did the Minister say today? He criticised the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) because his report is not ready, as though the Minister is waiting for the report before he can decide what to do about the issue. That is a disgrace for a Minister who is supposed to be protecting the people of Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman knows the statistics. He knows that in the time that it took him to speak today—20 minutes—another black or Asian family has been attacked in Britain in 1994.
  We can all condemn racial attacks on fellow citizens, but the important thing is what we propose to do about them. The Minister said that he did not propose to do anything other than reclassify offences and wait for another report. He was waiting for new guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers. He would do everything under the sun except take proper action to protect the black and Asian community. That is what the right hon. Gentleman told the House.
  Mr. Lloyd: What I said was that the Opposition's new clauses would not protect the black community, that they were ineffectual, pretentious and self-indulgent and would not help to solve a problem which I, like the hon. Gentleman, know is very real. It is a problem that deserves better argument than has been presented by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Vaz: The Minister now says that there is a problem. I am grateful for the fact that he has moved from his original statement, in which he questioned the extent of attacks in Britain.
  Mr. Lloyd: I did not.
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman talked about estimates that were being made and said that criminal damage did not really matter as it was not a serious issue. He will be able to read the report of his words in Hansard. He was concerned only about the most serious attacks.
  I know about these issues as I was subjected to attacks from the moment of my arrival in this country. As the representative of a constituency that is 70 per cent. non-Asian, I realise that it is very important that legislation on race issues be undertaken very carefully indeed. In this regard, Parliament must bring the nation with it. That is how I conduct my duties as a Member of Parliament. I represent everyone in my constituency.
  There comes a time when the hand-wringing must stop —when the Minister must stop blaming the Select
  64
  Committee on Home Affairs and other agencies and start taking effective action. The right hon. Gentleman could have come to the House and made a statement about changing the law of which every hon. Member would have been proud. We live in a multicultural society. We are proud of Britain's achievements and want to make sure that they continue. Race relations legislation is based on the fact that a minority of people are subjected to racial attack. The House of Commons must protect those people and, indeed, white pensioners who are attacked, through effective law and order legislation. But the Government refuse to introduce such legislation. The matter is in the Minister's hands. He must stop wriggling and ensure that effective action is taken.
  Finally, I want to tell the House a story about a person in London—not a constituent of mine—who came to see me two weeks ago. This gentleman came to Britain as a first-generation immigrant and established himself here. He now owns five chemist shops in the east end of London. When he was driving in the east end he was dragged out of his car and kicked and otherwise attacked, and he had to go to hospital for treatment. The Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute those responsible on the ground that they are already the subject of a list of offences. It will not take effective action.
  We must today send out, not just to the black and Asian community but to the country at large, the message that we are not prepared to do nothing. Action must be taken to protect our fellow citizens.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: In a very short time I shall join my hon. Friends in voting for new clause 13. I speak as one of the majority of members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who tabled new clause 127, which would create a new specific offence of racially motivated violence. The Chairman of the Select Committee—the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—has addressed adequately the substance of the issues and the reasons for tabling the new clause. As the offence that would be created is very specific and very clear I should like, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to notify you formally that a majority of the Select Committee's members and, I believe, a large number of hon. Members in general would like to have a separate Division on new clause 127.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman would need the leave of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It appears that leave is refused.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The divided: Ayes 247, Noes 285.

  Division No. 192]

  [6.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Allen, Graham

  Bonn, Rt Hon Tony

  Alton, David

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Berry, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Betts, Clive

  Austin-Walker, John

  Blair, Tony

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blunkett, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Boateng, Paul

  Battle, John

  Boyes, Roland

  65

  Bradley, Keith

  Heppell, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hoey, Kate

  Burden, Richard

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Byers, Stephen

  Home Robertson, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hume, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hutton, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davidson, Ian

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McFall, John

  Enright, Derek

  McGrady, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mallon, Seamus

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Fraser, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Galloway, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Gapes, Mike

  Maxton, John

  Garrett, John

  Meale, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Miller, Andrew

  Gould, Bryan

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mullin, Chris

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Olner, William

  66

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Patchett, Terry

  Spellar, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stott, Roger

  Prescott, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Randall, Stuart

  Wallace, James

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walley, Joan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Watson, Mike

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Short, Clare

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Soley, Clive

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkins, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cran, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

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

  Baldry, Tony

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Beggs, Roy

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bellingham, Henry

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dover, Den

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Faber, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  French, Douglas

  Churchill, Mr

  Gale, Roger

  67

  Gallie, Phil

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gorst, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sykes, John

  Maclean, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  68

  Thomason, Roy

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

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

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Trimble, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Robert C. Hughes.

  Watts, John

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
    New Clause 124

      POWERS TO STOP AND SEARCH IN ANTICIPATION OF VIOLENCE
      '.—(1)Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that—

      (a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and

      (b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence,

      he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles conferred by this section shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding twenty four hours.
      (2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above may be exercised by an inspector if he reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence are imminent and no superintendent is available.
      (3) If it appears to the officer who gave the authorisation or to a superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any incident falling within the authorisation, he may direct that the authorisation shall continue in being for a further six hours.
      (4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power—

      (a) to stop any pedestrian and search him or anything carried by him for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments;

      (b) to stop any vehicle and search the vehicle, its driver and any passenger for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments.

      (5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind.
      (6) This section applies (with the necessary modifications) to ships, aircraft and hovercraft as it applies to vehicles.
      (7) A person who fails to stop or (as the case may be) to stop the vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.
      (8) Any authorisation under this section shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it and shall specify the locality in which and the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable and a direction under subsection (3) above shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so.
      (9) Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of twelve months from the day on which the vehicle was stopped and similarly as respects a pedestrian who is stopped and searched under this section.
      (10) In this section—
      "dangerous instruments" means instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed;
      "offensive weapon" has the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and

      69
      "vehicle" includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
      (11) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to and not in derogation of, any power otherwise conferred.'.— [Mr. Maclean.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (1) above shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, specifying the conditions to be satisfied for the powers conferred under this section to be exercised, including:

      (a) what may reasonably constitute "a locality";

      (b) what would constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place.'.

      Mr. Maclean: The question of police powers of stop and search has always been a matter of understandable sensitivity. Present police powers to stop and search can be exercised only when a constable has a reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying an offensive weapon or other prohibited article. We continue to believe that that power is the right one for day-to-day circumstances, but are persuaded that the need to meet the test of reasonable suspicion seriously inhibits effective preventive action by the police when they believe that violence is likely to break out.
      In Committee, an amendment was tabled that would have given the police powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion after a violent incident. That was a valiant attempt to introduce a new power, but the amendment struck the wrong balance. It raised familiar concerns about police powers to stop and search, without providing the benefit of enabling the police to take preventive action.
      6.30 pm
      I undertook to consult the police further about how we could most effectively meet their concerns and the clause is a result of those consultations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are grateful to the police for their comments. We also attempted to keep Opposition Members informed as our thinking developed. I am well aware of their concerns and will deal with them in a moment, but I can say that we do not consider that there is a great deal between us on the matter.
      Amendment (a) deals with what constitutes "a locality" and
      "a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place"—
      [Interruption.]—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is clear that there is much private conversation in the Chamber. It would be a courtesy to the Minister and to those of us who wish to listen to him if people could be quiet.
      Mr. Maclean: Our new power could deal with similar incidents outside this House.
      In practice, "locality" and "reasonable belief' will be well understood, but they cannot sensibly be spelt out in more detail in the Bill or in secondary legislation because their precise meaning will depend on the circumstances.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are right to look urgently for ways in which to prevent the appalling assaults on police officers that we have witnessed. However, history and experience show that if men and women in uniform are given powers to deal arbitrarily with their fellow men and women, in all too short a time some will begin to abuse those powers. A Government of a party that lays such stress on personal freedom and believes in protecting the citizen from an oppressive state should not introduce such a measure.
      Mr. Maclean: I am disappointed that that is my hon. Friend's view. I can assure him that the power cannot be used arbitrarily or abused because it will be highly circumscribed. It can be used only for a maximum of 24 hours, will have to be authorised by a very senior police officer and will be limited to a defined geographical area. There will be detailed monitoring of the power to ensure that there is no abuse of the type to which my hon. Friend referred.
      Mr. David Trimble: I am sympathetic to the principle underlying the new clause, but one aspect concerns me. How will a citizen in one of the localities in respect of which direction has been made, where the new powers are operating, know that the new power exists? The reasonable man might be prepared to co-operate with the police—I am sure that most would do so if they were stopped—but if someone were in a hurry, for example, and said no when the policeman tried to stop him, he would have committed an offence although he might not have known that the power existed in the locality at the time. How is the citizen to know that the additional powers are in force in a locality?
      Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that we must fall back on ignorantia juris neminen excusat. Some citizens may not realise that many offences exist and that they are committing an offence by what they may think is perfectly legitimate conduct. In all seriousness, I can see no mechanism for declaring that a locality is a certain zone. I will happily consider police proposals aimed at drawing to the attention of people in an area the fact that the powers exist there. I will also happily consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions if he writes to me.
      Mr. Trimble: It is not enough to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, because, in the situations that the police will be dealing with, some people may be relying on their knowledge of the law—a knowledge that the police have the power only to stop a person if there are reasonable grounds and that they do not have the automatic right to stop people. If someone is relying on their knowledge of the law in general and is doing something that is reasonable, is it right to expose them to committing an offence when they do not know that the law has been changed in the locality for a short time?
      Mr. Maclean: If they are relying on their knowledge of the law, that knowledge will be defective when the clause comes into effect because the law will permit the police, in defined localities and if authorised by a senior police officer, to conduct stop-and-search operations for a limited time.
      When the power is introduced, the Home Office will take steps to try to draw it to the attention of the public. I suspect that the media will wish to draw attention to the

      71
      fact that the new powers exist. However, I cannot guarantee that everyone outside a night club or a pub will suddenly realise that the new law applies to them. I cannot even guarantee that for any existing law.
      I was telling the House why I did not think that the inclusion of amendment (a) was necessary, although it is well intentioned and sensible. The precise size of the locality will vary according to the circumstances. For example, if the police are concerned about violence outside a pub or a club, the locality specified might be a few streets only. If the police are concerned about the possibility of violence before and after a football match, the locality might be wider.
      The concept of "reasonableness" occurs frequently in statute and the courts are well used to interpreting it. We are concerned with a belief, based on sound professional judgment. If a judgment were shown to be arbitrary or irrational, there would be grounds for considering it to be unlawful. Again, that would be a matter for the courts to consider, if a decision were challenged. It would not be right to try to define the concept of "reasonableness" further in legislation.
      We accept that fuller elaboration of some operational matters, such as the nature of record-keeping arrangements and how long authorisations should last, will be necessary. Those were the substance of some other Opposition amendments, which were not called. The code of practice on statutory powers of stop and search, issued under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is the right place for such elaboration and I can assure the House and the Opposition that we shall want to make the necessary amendments.
      Mr. Neil Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman suggested that if an irrational decision were taken it could be challenged in court. Can he elaborate? I find it difficult to see how that could be done with a power that lasts for a maximum of 24 hours. By what method could something be put right after the event? It seems that it would be impossible to deal with it through the courts.
      Mr. Maclean: Exactly the same method could be used as exists at present. If anyone believes that a servant of the state or the police has acted unlawfully, irrationally or in abuse of his or her powers, the action can be challenged in court.
      The hon. Gentleman is questioning whether a group of citizens, who thought that implementation of the power outside a pub, for example, was unnecessary, could have it suspended. I accept that that would require very quick court action. I envisage that, through the power of judicial review, if the police or any police force behaved irrationally a court would judge against them. I care to bet that no other police forces or superintendents would then authorise the power in similar circumstances to those in which the courts had ruled that it was irrational.
      On the important question of community relations in respect of the new powers, we understand the anxiety that they might be used to the disadvantage of members of ethnic minority communities. Before tabling the amendment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained our intention to the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. The commission has welcomed the new powers, which it recognises will help prevent racially
      72
      motivated violence as well as other kinds of violent incidents. It understandably draws attention to the need for effective monitoring to ensure that the powers are not used in a racially discriminatory way, and I can confirm that it is our intention that such monitoring take place.
      The police themselves want close monitoring of the use of the powers. They are well aware that effective policing of inner city areas depends on the trust of the communities who live there, and they are as determined as the Government that such trust should not be damaged by heavy-handed or improper use of these powers. It is, therefore, critical that their use is properly monitored to ensure that this does not happen, and I hope that Opposition Members will accept our good faith in that matter as well, as it was part of the substance of their amendments.
      Police forces have been required since last April to collect statistics on the ethnic origin of people who are stopped and searched. The figures are to be published as part of each force's package of performance indicators. We intend that separate figures for stops and searches under the new power will also be published in this way.
      I commend the new clause to the House and I invite the House to accept it. I hope that, in view of the assurances that I have given, the Opposition will feel that their amendment (a) is not necessary on the face of the Bill.
      Mr. Alun Michael: I am glad to see that a Labour amendment in Committee has been effective in getting the Government to recognise the need for action against violence on our streets and in a variety of other situations.
      I also welcome the positive response of the Minister of State to our offer to seek an acceptable formula for a search power and the exchanges that we have had on this issue. I commend it because it is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House have made a serious attempt to find a formula that will balance the requirement to provide the power with the safeguards that will reassure those who are concerned about the misuse of the power—a concern already expressed by Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber.
      What we need is a power that allows the police to take the initiative and to search people in appropriate circumstances, but which avoids the dangers of the old "sus" laws which did enormous damage to trust and confidence between the police and many local communities.
      Having said that, it is only fair to point out that there was no attempt to deal with this issue in the original Bill, and it is one of a series of pieces of evidence that prove beyond all doubt that the present Home Secretary brought forward this ragbag of a Bill without proper care and thought and without addressing the real issues that are so important to individuals, families and communities throughout the country as well as to the police who are at the sharp end of so many serious problems.
      I remind the House that the Bill as drafted contained nothing to deal with racial violence, which we have just dealt with, nothing to deal with drugs and drug-related crime, nothing to deal with violence on our streets and nothing to deal with possession of guns or trading in weapons. When the Bill emerges with something to deal with some of these issues, the Labour Members on the Standing Committee, to whose work I pay tribute, will have good reason to feel proud of their work there.

      73
      The new clause moved by the Minister does the job of providing the power when it is needed. We would all agree, for instance, that when it is known that two gangs are heading for a pre-planned venue for a fight it is desirable for the police to have the power to intervene and to search those in the area of such events and to prevent violence from taking place. It is the general theme of Labour policy that more needs to be done to prevent crime rather than just depending on punishment which can be delivered only after the event when violence has already created victims.
      Our new clause in Committee achieved the balance between providing the power and the necessary safeguards in regard to some situations—although only some—because it required the trigger of an objective fact, an event of violence, for the power of search to be used. We said then that we would be willing to consider a preventive power if a clause could be drafted that would include an equally careful formula, balancing power and responsibility.
      I believe that the amendments that we have tabled are helpful to the work of the police and helpful in achieving such a balance. They seek to provide in legislation clarity for the superintendent or other senior officer who has to decide to permit the exercise of the power contained in the clause.
      The Minister has undertaken to address these issues within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rules and to bring formulations before the House, but let me explain the importance of the issues that we addressed in the amendment that has been selected and also in the other amendments, with which there were technical difficulties —not surprisingly, I may say, given the half hour we had in which to meet the deadline for submitting amendments on Friday.
      The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said that we needed to be sure that there was no way in which this power could be arbitrarily used, and he was absolutely right. It is also right that the House should ensure, in the drafting, that that is the case, and that both the House and another place have a chance to scrutinise any limitations on the exercise of the power, so as to be satisfied that such a requirement is met.
      The danger with the power of stop and search is that it can be abused. It can be used in a way that is not intended by Parliament. We need a safeguard against such abuse. We all know, from the operation of the "sus" laws and the use of other powers of search, that very often, for instance, young black males will be stopped to a disproportionate extent and that confidence between police and the local community can be undermined or even fail as a result.
      6.45 pm
      We have seen in recent times the throwing of the "ring of steel" round the City of London. We all recognise its importance in dealing with the serious problem of terrorism and in the avoidance of such incidents if possible. But I venture to suggest that the Metropolitan police, because of their experience in recent years, would have exercised the power a little differently than the City of London police, simply because the experience of the two forces is quite different. The subject of frequent comment has been the surprisingly large number of black drivers who are stopped when it is not generally thought that there is an excessive number of black members of the IRA, yet
      74
      the IRA is the clear objective of the ring of steel round the City. It is a serious point, and it is recognised by the police as being serious.
      It is to ensure that there is no misuse of a power that we all consider desirable for the appropriate circumstances that it is important for the amendments, which the Minister has recognised as being sensible and helpful, to be accepted and properly enshrined in the law.
      The Minister said that there should be rigorous ethnic monitoring. The letter in which, on behalf of the three police associations, the chief constable of Hampshire sets out the nature of the clause that they wish to see, says:
      "This power would be subject to rigorous ethnic monitoring and would be an effective measure with which to combat racial violence against the ethnic minority communities."
      It is an aspiration which we all share, but the requirement for monitoring is not in the new clause as it stands.
      As a result of talking to the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, I have received the view from him and from that organisation that our suggested amendments are helpful. If the Minister is to accept what we intend in the amendments, and if those intentions are to be in the requirements under which police must exercise this power, we are very close, as the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, to an agreement across the House on both the intention in regard to the new power and the limitations that should be placed on it.
      The four amendments that we tabled would not create problems for the police in exercising the powers that they seek. I have spoken to a number of police representatives in the past few days, and the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers has confirmed that he cannot see that our proposal would be restrictive: it allows the power in the Government's new clause and does not impose constraints that would make it unworkable. It would simply put into effect the intention of the police in seeking this power, without allowing them to go beyond the requirements that they seek.
      Many police representatives said originally that they would be happy with a six-hour period rather than a 24-hour period. Senior officers have made that comment to me. We have not sought in our amendments to restrict that period, because we think that it is important that there should be flexibility, but that the minimum period possible should be used.
      A senior police officer said to me, as recently as yesterday, that the great danger is that the maximum becomes the norm—that one says, "We can give 24 hours; let us give as many hours as possible." That is why we feel that there should be a balancing constraint; that the superintendent or senior officer should act under a constraint of the maximum number of hours consistent with effective use of the power.
      A representative of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales said to me that it would welcome the clarification that would be provided to its members in exercising that power. It would be clear what Parliament intended. It would be clear that there were constraints on them in exercising those powers.
      I refer in passing, as the Minister referred to them positively, to the amendments that were not selected for debate. Amendment (d) requires a record to be kept, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, of the full circumstances of every occasion on which the powers in the new clause are exercised and requires a regular review of those records by Her Majesty's inspectorate of

      75
      constabulary. That would require the co-monitoring by the Commission for Racial Equality and the inspectorate, which is the aspiration and would meet one of the major concerns about the operation of the new clause.
      Amendment (c) proposes that the senior officer who allows the exercise of the powers would have oversight of the use of the power and would be responsible for ensuring that a post-operational report and review be submitted to the chief constable or, in the case of the Metropolitan police, the Commissioner, and to the police authority. I think that that is accepted by the Minister as the right way to proceed, because it reminds the person exercising the power that the decision is to be reviewed. Superintendents have said to me that they would have to record their thought processes in reaching the decision and that would be helpful in ensuring that it was done in the way that Parliament intends.
      Amendment (b) refers to the use of the power for the minimum number of hours consistent with the effective use of the power. I am sure that that is the right balance to achieve.
      Finally, amendment (a) seeks a definition from the Government of what may reasonably constitute a locality and of what would constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place. The advice that has been given to us is consistent with what the Minister said—that the courts would decide those matters if they were not decided by Parliament. I ask the House: is it reasonable or right to ask a senior police officer to guess what the courts would describe as being responsible if he exercises the power? I suggest that it is not.
      It is the responsibility of Parliament to define a locality, not in a limiting way that says—as the Minister seems to suggest—that it can only be 200 yd in one direction and 300 yd in another, but by stating the considerations that a senior officer should take into account in deciding that the circumstances are right for the power to be exercised. It is only right for Parliament to give guidance on that. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment (a), because that will enshrine the principle that that definition—that expression of intent by Parliament—should be in the legislation.
      I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he would take the gist of our four amendments into the guidance that will be provided in the PACE requirements and will be subject to consideration by Parliament. I believe that he has gone a long way towards meeting our concerns in his responses in correspondence and in the debate. We believe, however, that it would be best for the principle that is enshrined in amendment (a) to be in the Bill. We would therefore seek to divide the House if the Minister is unable to accept that amendment.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I declare an interest, as I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) gave the impression that new clause 124 was Labour-inspired. It was nothing of the kind. It was the result of an all-party initiative, which started out asking for 28 days; it was reduced to seven days; eventually, the Labour party said that it would consider six hours and now we have increased it to 24 hours. That is an example of an effective all-party parliamentary initiative to break the deadlock that has existed for the past decade, in which the
      76
      police have found it difficult to do their job properly because of the severe restrictions that exist on the stop-and-search powers.
      I therefore congratulate the Minister for State, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), on the Government's decision to provide those new proactive powers to search for offensive weapons in carefully defined circumstances, and I must say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that I am glad to know that the new clause has the support of his colleagues and that he feels that we can now make progress on what has, until now, been a very difficult issue.
      The decision to introduce the new clause has been warmly welcomed by the Police Federation and by the other police staff associations. It is the result of a discussion that has taken place, not only with my hon. Friend the Minister a few days before the easter recess, but with successive Home Secretaries, to my certain knowledge, for the past five years, ever since I have been parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on listening to the advice of the police staff associations and finding a way to enable a senior police officer to authorise the use of powers by a uniformed constable to stop and search persons and vehicles for a period not exceeding 24 hours or, in circumstances where an offence has been, or is reasonably suspected to have been, committed, for a further two hours.
      Since 1984, police stop-and-search powers have been prescribed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and they are confined to very narrow and specific circumstances. At present, a police officer must have grounds for suspecting that a person is carrying an offensive weapon before a search can take place in the street and the power to search is limited by the codes of practice which are part of the 1984 Act. If, for example, an officer wishes to search beyond a suspect's outer clothing, that search must take place in a police station.
      The problem that confronts the police today, a decade after the enactment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, is that there is at present no power to search groups of people, even when the police have grounds to believe that an offensive weapon—a knife, for example—may be carried by some members of the group or that a violent incident is likely or has just taken place. Modern policemen and women throughout the country have to face that situation every day of the week. They need the powers to deal with that situation, especially in relation to knives, which are the bane of the life of every police officer in every part of the country. At present, there is no power to detain a group for searching after such an incident has occurred. Any search in such a situation must be based on suspicion that each individual is carrying a weapon, and that is quite impractical.
      In practice, the absence of those powers has caused great difficulties for the police. For that reason, the Police Federation and the other staff associations have repeatedly mentioned the matter to successive Home Secretaries during the past five years and previously. The police need to be able to act to prevent violence. That is what the new clause is all about. They need adequate powers to investigate following an incident and to recover weapons —for example, the weapon or weapons that may have been used in a specific incident.
      The new clause enables the police to deal with incidents involving groups of people when trouble is likely to occur

      77
      or has occurred. An example of that would be the aftermath of a stabbing incident inside or outside a pub. There is widespread concern in the House, and outside, about racially motivated attacks and the activities of racist gangs.
      The new powers would enable the police to take action before trouble occurred or to search suspected perpetrators before an incident occurred. Surely it is ridiculous that although the police may have received prior information that trouble is expected at a football match, for example, they lack the power to search fans near the ground although stewards inside the ground can do so.
      Some people outside the House may mistakenly take the view that these new powers represent a return to the "sus" law. If they think that, I can reassure them—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth who referred to the "sus" law—that that is not so. I think that it is important for the House to recognise, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that the old "sus" law had absolutely nothing whatever to do with stop and search. It was a power given to the police to arrest persons who were suspected of loitering in a public place in order to commit a crime.
      7 pm
      Mr. Michael: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we need a lecture about the definition of the "sus" law; we recognise the difference between the powers. But the communities that will be affected and which have an important relationship with the police should understand it precisely. That was the whole point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth); it is a concern which is shared across the House.
      Mr. Shersby: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: it is vital that people should understand the powers, and that was the reason for my remarks. It is important to remember that loitering in those circumstances was, in itself, an arrestable offence. Those who will rightly be concerned about these matters will be reassured to know that the new clause has been carefully and narrowly drafted. It permits only the searching of people for weapons, and then only in the specific circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred.
      As we have heard, a search has to be authorised by a senior officer. It is subject to a time limit and has to occur in a specific place. I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend has given that the operation of the time limit and the place where the powers are to be exercised will be dealt with in the codes of practice.
      I also believe that there is nothing in the proposed new powers to alarm the ethnic minority communities. Earlier this evening, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to concern in the ethnic communities. No one should attempt to alarm these communities by giving them the impression that police will use the powers to discriminate against them. On the contrary, the police have been strongly criticised for failing to act when racist gangs have caused trouble in multiracial neighbourhoods. In fact, the new powers will enable the police to act against the troublemakers and protect innocent members of minority groups.
      I hope that in the consultation process my hon. Friend will ensure that the local police and community liaison groups are fully aware of the new law and the way in which it will operate. These groups have the very considerable
      78
      ability to communicate with local councillors and others who work with the police to make sure that people are aware of the way in which the law is supposed to operate.
      For those reasons, I strongly support and warmly welcome the new clause. It demonstrates once again that both the Home Office and Ministers are prepared to listen to the expert advice that they receive from the police staff associations. I am particularly pleased that the new clause has come about as a result of considerable discussions between hon. Members on both sides of the House, both in and outside the Standing Committee.
      Mr. Maclennan: The power to stop and search has proved extremely controversial and sensitive. I should have preferred the Government to incorporate their proposals in this area much earlier in the proceedings and to bring something forward in the Bill when it was published.
      It does not seem to me to be a satisfactory way to legislate to produce a significant amendment to the Bill at a relatively late stage without much open consultation and without giving hon. Members on both sides of the House who well remember the consequences of the old law the opportunity to consult fully about precisely what the Government have in mind. I think it fair to say that it has been a rather hurried process: I share the views of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who said that it may be taken ill.
      Having looked at the new clause as carefully as I could and having consulted, in the very short time available, as widely as I could, I think that it holds out the prospect of making a power available to the police which could be of value in preventing violent action. I strongly favour prevention and I know that the police also favour that. They are also concerned to ensure that the power should be used only when it is truly required.
      I think that the most important matters that the Minister referred to are not included in the Bill, but are those that will be included in the revision of the codes of practice flowing from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We will certainly want to look at them.
      The powers are plainly intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the possibility of their being invoked in the event of a perceived threat of violence at a football match. I hope that it is not the intention to use these powers at just any football match. Of course violence often occurs, to a greater or lesser extent, in close proximity to football matches; but there would have to be a particular reason associated with a particular match and locality before it would be appropriate to invoke these powers.
      Similarly, the powers should not be invoked on just any Saturday night outside any pub in a rough area of town. I hope that they will be invoked only in respect of a particular perceived threat. I hope that the rules that the Minister will be bringing forward in the code of practice will make that clear.
      I do not believe that amendment (a) is practical. I do not think that it is possible to spell out in a statutory instrument precisely the sorts of circumstances in which the powers might be used. It is clear that some flexibility and discretion must lie with the senior police officers who wish to invoke the powers.
      Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclennan: Certainly, in a moment.
      A width of discretion is necessary if the powers are to be useful.
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made clear the processes that have to be gone through and the considerations that have to be taken into account. There should not be an over-restrictive definition. We clearly seek flexibility and that is why the amendment is drafted as it is.
      Mr. Maclennan: I think that it would be extremely difficult for the House to define what would
      "constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place".
      They are the words that the hon. Gentleman has used in his amendment (a). Whether or not a belief is reasonable is an objective test, and it must be for the police officer to decide whether that test is discharged properly. I cannot see how crystal ball gazing by Parliaments and legislatures about the sorts of circumstances in which it might be reasonable to use the powers will assist. The hon. Gentleman no doubt wished to come in on the act in some way at this stage. I quite understand that; it is perfectly normal for Oppositions to take that view.
      We must regard this important new power as exceptional. I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Uxbridge said about the reassurance that should be given to members of ethnic minority communities who may fear that the power will be used against them. It should be designed to protect those communities against the abuses, harassment and violence that have given rise to such concern.
      For those reasons, I offer my support to the Government in bringing forward the new clause.
      Mr. Greville Janner: The new clause has much good in it, as we all share the same concerns. What worries us is the fact that the Minister is prepared to put only into guidance what should be contained in the Bill. The law has little faith in guidance, because breach of guidance gives no one any rights, whereas breach of a statute or regulations made under a statute is an offence. Breach of a code may be taken into account in any proceedings—civil or criminal—to which it is relevant.
      My constituents are immensely worried about crime in general and violent crime in particular. Last week, I attended a meeting in Leicester of people in a mixed race neighbourhood who were worried about both staying home or going out at night. I discussed with police officers what could be done about the prodigious and awful growth of crime in my constituency. It was not suggested that there was a difficulty with the right to search. Rather, the difficulty was the growth of crime, the decrease in policing and the weakness of the law in dealing with racial harassment and racial crime, none of which is dealt with in the Bill.
      Nor does the Bill deal with the anxieties of the Muslim community, which is not regarded as an ethnic minority and does not have the same legal protection as the Sikh or Jewish communities. Nor does the Bill answer the recommendations made by Eldred Tabachnik, leading Queen's Counsel and leading member of the Jewish community, in a report that he submitted to the Home Secretary and which the Home Secretary undertook to take into account.
      80
      Furthermore, the Bill shows no acceptance of the recommendations of the Home Office Select Committee, chaired by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). As Chairman of another Select Committee, I deeply deplore the fact that the Government take no notice of Select Committee reports. One might understand the Government taking no notice if the Select Committee is chaired by an Opposition Member, but one does not understand it when the Committee is chaired by such a staunch Government supporter who has never been accused of being on the far left of any party, least of all his own.
      The Government have shown no concern for the anxieties of the black, Asian, Muslim or Jewish communities. Even more important in parliamentary terms, they have shown no concern for what they have been told in the unanimous report of the Select Committee.
      We accept the right to search, although I wish that it had been put in a better form. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made some important points. He knows what this matter is about. He said that the new clause would not alarm the ethnic communities and, to an extent, he is right. But it is not a conscious alarm; it is built in because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the police do not understand them and that too many members of the police do not care about them. I believe that they are often wrong, but they do not have the security which we want them to have. They are worried about the return of the "sus" laws. The Government and the hon. Member for Uxbridge should understand that, as many police officers do.
      7.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that the right to search must be given before violence takes place. He is right, but he should know what the fascists are up to. They do not just settle down in places like Tower Hamlets or inhabit the terraces at football matches. They arrange meetings—often with neo-Nazis from other countries—that move from place to place, and the police do not know in advance where those meetings will be.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the police are given permission to search only for weapons. But when one searches for weapons, other things may turn up. Nobody will believe that the police are looking only for weapons. Although the police should have powers, they should be ringed properly and carefully, as the Opposition amendment suggests.
      Will the Minister take another look at the matter? If he accepts that those rights should be approved by the police and embedded in the police's reasoning so that a senior police officer's decision to search is reasonable, why should not a reasonable Government include them in the Bill? I hope that, on reconsideration, that is what the Minister will do.
      Mr. Gerrard: I shall be brief because we are pressed for time and I do not wish to repeat some of the arguments that have already been made.
      Clearly, the Commission for Racial Equality has accepted that there are some good points about the new clause, but it has also emphasised the need for monitoring. Many powers, including stop and search, could be extended to have an effect on crime. But one must think carefully about whether those powers should go ahead because of their impact on civil liberties. While the

      81
      Minister has mentioned the welcome from some people, organisations that deal with civil liberties have expressed concern about the new clause.
      There are several areas of concern. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised the issue of temporary powers and how people will know whether a power is in force in a particular area. I see the potential for problems when a power is applied temporarily in a small area. A person who is stopped will not know whether the policeman has the right to stop and search him, as it will depend whether the power is in force.
      I am concerned about powers that allow the anticipation of an event. If a violent incident has occurred, that fact can be clearly established. But anticipation of an event that might happen and powers taken as a result are a different matter, as they will depend on subjective judgments. A few years ago in my constituency, a funeral took place of an Asian man who had been killed in an arson attack on his house. It happened to be at almost the same time as riots in Brixton and other parts of London. Large numbers of people were expected to turn up for the funeral. As a result of the police anticipating trouble—in the event, there was none—shops the length of the main road were boarded up. The police had stirred up disquiet as a result of anticipating trouble. I see exactly the same thing happening under this power when trouble is anticipated.
      The Opposition amendments would achieve monitoring and the Minister has said that he wants to achieve that. It is not just a matter of monitoring on an ethnic basis, although that is important, but of how often the power will be used. We have been told that it is intended for emergency use only. I have a suspicion that, once a power exists and has been used, it will quickly stop being something exceptional that is used only in emergencies.
      What will happen if the monitoring shows that there is an imbalance in the use of the stop-and-search powers, and that they are being used disproportionately, particularly against young black males? We know that the "sus" laws were used in that way, although they involved a different power. Many young black males feel that they are stopped in their cars much more often than anyone else. We know that, around the City of London, the powers are being used disproportionately against young blacks.
      I have serious doubts about the wisdom of the power. If it is misused, it will cause serious damage to community relations. I suspect that, even if it is not misused, but is used precisely as drafted, it will still cause trouble and damage community relations. The new clause introduces an extremely dangerous power—one which we may live to regret introducing.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I declare an interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
      As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned, the police are pleased with the new clause, and the fact that stop-and-search powers are to be granted. Some 16 police officers have been either stabbed or shot in the past 10 years, besides the many civilians who have been victims of guns and knives. There is clearly a rising problem, with which the police increasingly have to deal, not only at football matches and public events, but when there are violent incidents in public houses. The police want to enter, but they do not know who may be holding a gun or knife. They want to be able to make people turn out their pockets. That sort of power is necessary.
      82
      I am pleased that the Government have recognised the nature of the increasing problem of guns and knives. They seem to have realised it only since the Committee stage of the Bill. As late as Christmas, the Home Office was telling the police that it would not guarantee further extensions of stop-and-search powers. It is only as the result of pressure, from not only Conservative Back Benchers but Opposition Members, that the Government are now prepared to accept changes. Conservative Members withdrew their amendments, but Opposition Members tabled amendments in Committee and, in those circumstances, the Minister and the Home Office were forced to make the sort of change that we are now seeing.
      I shall not embarrass the Minister by reading back to him all the comments that he made about my new clause 184, which sought to introduce stop-and-search powers.
      Mr. Paul Boateng: Go on, embarrass him.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am greatly tempted to do so, but I am conscious that we are pressed for time so I shall not give way to temptation.
      I shall paraphrase the Minister of State, Home Office, who said that the phrase "reasonable belief' was deficient and that reasonable suspicion should provide the basis and criterion for any search. He said that that was a fundamental principle of PACE. He said that my new clause was too widely drawn as it allowed a six-hour period. Government new clause 124 uses the phrase "reasonably believes" and ignores the idea of reasonable suspicion being necessary. It is even more widely drawn than my new clause and grants a 24-hour period.
      The Minister seems to have been involved in a political leapfrog from one side of the Labour party's position to the other. I am curious about how he made that intellectual jump. I am not sure whether he will wind up the debate, but if he does perhaps he will explain how he made his intellectual jump—he might have been forced to do so out of embarrassment. The Minister has given reassurances that the codes of practice will contain safeguards. Those safeguards will not only protect the public, which is important, but the police, which is also important. We must ensure that we maintain and improve good community-police relations.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (1) above shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, specifying the conditions to be satisfied for the powers conferred under this section to be exercised, including:

      (a) what may reasonably constitute "a locality";

      (b) what would constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 304.

      Division 193]

      [7.25 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ashton, Joe

      Ainger, Nick

      Austin-Walker, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Bayley, Hugh

      83

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

      Bell, Stuart

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benton, Joe

      Gunnell, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hain, Peter

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Hall, Mike

      Betts, Clive

      Hanson, David

      Blair, Tony

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Blunkett, David

      Henderson, Doug

      Boateng, Paul

      Hendron, Dr Joe.

      Boyes, Roland

      Heppell, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hoey, Kate

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

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Burden, Richard

      Home Robertson, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Hood, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Callaghan, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hume, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hutton, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Clelland, David

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jamieson, David

      Coffey, Ann

      Janner, Greville

      Connerty, Michael

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jowell, Tessa

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cousins, Jim

      Keen, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Darling, Alistair

      Lewis, Terry

      Davidson, Ian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Denham, John

      McAllion, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dixon, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McFall, John

      Dowd, Jim

      McGrady, Eddie

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McKelvey, William

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Enright, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Etherington, Bill

      McMaster, Gordon

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McWilliam, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Madden, Max

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mahon, Alice

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Fisher, Mark

      Mendelson, Peter

      Flynn, Paul

      Marek, Dr John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Fraser, John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Martlew, Eric

      Galbraith, Sam

      Maxton, John

      Galloway, George

      Meacher, Michael

      Gapes, Mike

      Meale, Alan

      Garrett, John

      Michael, Alun

      George, Bruce

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Milburn, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Miller, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gould, Bryan

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Graham, Thomas

      Morley, Elliot

      84

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Short, Clare

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Hara, Edward

      Speller, John

      Olner, William

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Parry, Robert

      Stevenson, George

      Patchett, Terry

      Stott, Roger

      Pendry, Tom

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Straw, Jack

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dennis

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Vaz, Keith

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Prescott, John

      Walley, Joan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Purchase, Ken

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Watson, Mike

      Radice, Giles

      Welsh, Andrew

      Randall, Stuart

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Reid, Dr John

      Wilson, Brian

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Winnick, David

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Wise, Audrey

      Rooker, Jeff

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wray, Jimmy

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Rowlands, Ted

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Salmond, Alex

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Burns, Simon

      Alton, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ancram, Michael

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashby, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cash, William

      Atkins, Robert

      Churchill, Mr

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clappison, James

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Coe, Sebastian

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Colvin, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Congdon, David

      Bates, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Beggs, Roy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Couchman, James

      Bendell, Vivian

      Cran, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Day, Stephen

      Booth, Hartley

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Boswell, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowden, Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Duncan, Alan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Graham

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      85

      Elletson, Harold

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

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evennett, David

      Legg, Barry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lidington, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lightbown, David

      Forth, Eric

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lord, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Luff, Peter

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Gale, Roger

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gallie, Phil

      MacKay, Andrew

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Maclean, David

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Maclennan, Robert

      Garnier, Edward

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Maginnis, Ken

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Malone, Gerald

      Gorst, John

      Mans, Keith

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Marland, Paul

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mates, Michael

      Hague, William

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Merchant, Piers

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Mills, Iain

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Harris, David

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Harvey, Nick

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hawkins, Nick

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hawksley, Warren

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Heald, Oliver

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hendry, Charles

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Robert

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Norris, Steve

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Horam, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Paice, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunter, Andrew

      Pickles, Eric

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Richards, Rod

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Key, Robert

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sackville, Tom

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      86

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shersby, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Sims, Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Trimble, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Trotter, Neville

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Tyler, Paul

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Viggers, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Walden, George

      Spring, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Sproat, Iain

      Wallace, James

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waller, Gary

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Steen, Anthony

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stephen, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stewart, Allan

      Wells, Bowen

      Streeter, Gary

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Sumberg, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Sweeney, Walter

      Whittingdale, John

      Sykes, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Thomason, Roy

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

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

      Mr. Michael Brown.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause 125

      OFFENCE OF RACIALLY INFLAMMATORY PUBLICATION ETC. TO BE ARRESTABLE
      '. In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (h) inserted by section 137(4) of this Act, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(i) an offence under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 (publishing, etc. material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred):".'—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 15

      LAW OF MURDER
      'The presumption in criminal law that the offences of murder and manslaughter shall occur only if the party wounded or hurt dies of the wound or hurt within a year and a day shall be abolished.'.—[Mr. Milburn.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Alan Milburn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause has a straightforward purpose—to bring the law on murder into the 20th century. At present, the offence is governed by Judge Cook's antiquated 16th-century definition:
      "When a man of sound memory unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature so as the party wounded dies of the wound or hurt within a year and a day after the same".
      That outdated definition has cost a family in my constituency the justice to which they were entitled following the tragic death of their son, Michael Gibson.
      Michael suffered an unprovoked assault in Darlington town centre in April 1992, a month before his 21st

      87
      birthday. As he walked along Darlington's High Row, he was savagely attacked by a passing stranger. He was hit only once, but it was enough. He remained comatose for the next 16 months, kept alive thanks only to the care and dedication of staff at Darlington memorial hospital.
      Within a matter of hours, Michael's assailant, David Clark, had been arrested by local police. He was well known to them, having served recent sentences for burglary and actual bodily harm. Clark readily confessed that, after consuming 12 pints of lager, he had gone out looking for trouble that Friday evening. He found it in the shape of Michael Gibson.
      But David Clark is a very lucky man. He is free today to roam the streets once again, thanks to an ancient law that takes no account of advances in medical technology.
      The absurdities of the law as it stands mean quite simply that Michael Gibson took too long to die. According to a letter that I have received from Barbara Mills, the Director of Public Prosecutions:
      "in the event of Michael having died within a year and a day of the assault upon him, Mr. Clark would have been charged with an offence of manslaughter."
      The Crown Prosecution Service even waited for 366 days before bringing Clark to court, but once the year and a day had passed, it was left with no alternative but to bring a charge of grievous bodily harm against David Clark. He received a two-year sentence. He was released from prison just nine weeks after Michael Gibson finally died, in August 1993.
      It is little wonder that Michael's mother, Pat Gibson, has earned the support of people throughout the north-east of England for her campaign to scrap this antiquated rule. She has to live with the knowledge that, if her son had been attacked just 150 miles further north—in Scotland—her son's killer would face life imprisonment, because the rule simply does not apply there. Nor does it apply in any other European country apart from Cyprus. She said of her son's killer:
      "I thought the law and justice would take care of him. But the law has simply aided and abetted him in getting away with it."
      Pat Gibson is right. The law protected the guilty, because it had been outstripped by medical science. Today, patients can be kept alive for many years, thanks to all the advances in life-saving and life-enhancing medical technology. There are now some 1,200 patients in England alone who are believed to be in a persistent vegetative state. No doubt many will be the victims of road traffic accidents, but a few will be the victims of assault.
      I am aware of at least three other cases in which the 366-day rule has served to deny justice to the victims of crime and to their families. As the Minister conceded in Committee, the number of crime victims caught in this legal time warp is likely to increase as the frontiers of medicine are constantly pushed back.
      He has, of course, expressed sympathy for the Gibson family, and that is very welcome. He even said in Committee that the 366-day rule was anachronistic. That is very welcome. What is less welcome is the fact that, for almost a year, he has ducked and dodged about making a final decision about the future of this outdated and unjust rule.
      88
      7.45 pm
      I first wrote to the Home Secretary on 19 May last year, calling for a review of the 366-day rule. The Minister cannot claim this evening that he has not had enough time to assess the implications of change. He has had 11 months to conduct a review. Only now is he prepared to refer the issue to the Law Commission, but he still cannot say what sort of timetable or remit the Law Commission will have, or when it will report its conclusions to the House. That is simply not good enough.
      The Minister said in Committee that the first clause that I tabled would have given rise to a new anachronism, because it did not cover manslaughter as well as murder. There can be no such excuses with new clause 15. It covers both, and has taken on board his concerns. It calls for the immediate abolition of a rule that is bringing the law into disrepute by failing properly to punish those who commit the most serious of offences on our statute book—murder.
      Over recent months, we have all heard much from Ministers about getting tough on crime. The Minister himself has spoken eloquently about the need to return to common-sense principles in matters of crime and punishment. I can remind him that, just a month ago, he told the House:
      "Our constituents are sick and tired of lengthy legal games letting the guilty go free on technicalities."—(Official Report, 2 March 1994; Vol. 238, c. 1054.]
      Tonight, Ministers have an opportunity to put those convictions into practice. Ministers can demonstrate that the commitment to justice and the right of victims come before retaining an ancient rule that has simply outlived its usefulness.
      I urge all hon. Members this evening to support new clause 15.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The rule to which the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has referred is a rule which, when it was created, no doubt met the perception at that time of common sense. If somebody had recovered more than a year and a day after the trauma leading to their unconsciousness, it would have been regarded as a miracle of sanctifiable proportions.
      But understandings have changed, and medical science, as the hon. Gentleman said, has moved on a good deal. One could not say that it was an everyday occurrence for somebody to recover more than a year and a day after becoming unconscious, but it is certainly relatively common for people to recover a measure of consciousness much more than a year after a traumatic incident.
      During my years in legal practice, I have been involved as a barrister in a good many personal injury cases. I recall a number of cases in which children, particularly, who had the physical strength to remain alive while unconscious for a considerable time, have made—albeit part, but good part —recoveries from what appeared to be a persistent vegetative state. So science is very different from the understanding at the time that the rule was created.
      That nobody can be prosecuted in 1994 for murder or manslaughter after a year and a day plainly makes an ass of the law. As every year passes, the position will seem ever more asinine, unless the Minister is prepared to concede that the time has now come for a change.
      It is hardly a revolutionary change. I am given to understand that the law of Scotland does not involve a rule of this kind, and that it never has. I do not believe that life, at least in modern times, is held more cheaply in Scotland than it is in England and Wales. It is my view that what

      89
      applies in Scotland in this regard should apply in England. There is a need for some uniformity in the law of murder and manslaughter within the countries of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I hope that we may see some harmonisation of these criminal laws throughout the European Union in due course.
      Many issues affecting the law of murder and mánslaughter have been and are being considered by the Law Commission. I believe that fundamental changes should take place which go somewhat beyond this proposal. It should not await that wider consideration before being introduced. Many practising lawyers, such as myself, who have appeared in a great number of homicide cases, believe that the distinction between murder and manslaughter is now no longer sensible, and that the mandatory life sentence is no longer a realistic way of dealing with the vast range of facts that may arise in a homicide case. I accept that those issues may require wider and longer debate and possibly specific legislation, but this is an issue which the Government have had more than enough time to consider. The time for change has now arrived.
      I applaud the proposal made by the hon. Member for Darlington and hope that we shall at last hear a positive response from the Minister.
      Mr. Maclean: Of course I believe that people who kill should not escape the full force of the law because of a technicality. That has been my view, is my view and always will be my view.
      I said in Committee that I was personally inclined to the view that abolition would turn out to be the sensible reform of the year-and-a-day rule in due course, and that also is still my view. I am not known as a person much given to sympathy for those who commit crime and I worry that the rule has outlived its usefulness, but I believe that simple abolition would create a vacuum in the way in which we treat those who may be liable to further prosecution having already been convicted of a lesser offence, if the victim goes on to die, or who may not have been prosecuted in the first place. We are, after all, talking about the most serious charge known to law in the same breath as we contemplate a potentially unlimited liability to prosecution in the future.
      If the matter were really as straightforward as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) suggests, why did the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment not leap instantly to the conclusion that the rule should be abolished? Instead, they recommended its retention.
      As I said in Committee, the Law Commission had separately arrived at a decision to review the rule—not, I must point out to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), as part of a long and wide-ranging review of all aspects of crime and punishment or murder, but as a separate, shorter, sharper review. Those of us who are familiar with the Law Commission's way of working will know that consultation is its key component, and that it would be foolish and wrong to expect the commission to forgo that element simply to beat a parliamentary deadline. In any event, it is not for me, the Government or the House to try to set timetables for the Law Commission.
      I do not expect that the commission will produce its report in time for the Government to amend the Bill; still less would I presume to guarantee that the commission will come up with the same proposal as Opposition Members,
      90
      or follow my own views on the matter. I can say, however, that the commission has been made well aware of the strength of feeling in the House and of the Government's concern.
      That is why I believe that the Law Commission will take forward this difficult but discreet and limited task with urgency. I believe that the House should therefore reject this premature new clause with every confidence that the matter will be quickly and thoroughly dealt with by those who are expert in it.
      Mr. Michael: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) for the way in which he has pursued the issue for a considerable time. I made the case on behalf of the Opposition in Committee, and I do not need to add to the arguments which stand in the record of the sittings of the Standing Committee of 3 March.
      I remind the Minister of his words in response to our debate in Committee:
      "The year and a day rule has outlived its usefulness, but we must tie up the loose ends."
      With reference to those loose ends, he asked:
      "What happens if the rule is abolished for murder but the charge is later reduced for manslaughter?"—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B. 3 March 1994; c. 1165]
      We have put that right, because new clause 15 deals with manslaughter as well as murder.
      The Minister does not wait for or listen to advice unless it suits him. There has been dangerously speedy decision-making on a range of issues—videos and stop-and-search are only two cases in point. The Minister is again refusing to fulfil a promise made to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington by the Prime Minister. At this point, the House should vote on the issue and resolve it once and for all.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 277.

      Division No. 194]

      [7.53 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Callaghan, Jim

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tty NE)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Alton, David

      Cann, Jamie

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clapham, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ann

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bell, Stuart

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Benton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Cummings, John

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Blair, Tony

      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)

      Burden, Richard

      Denham, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Dewar, Donald

      91

      Dixon, Don

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dobson, Frank

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McAllion, John

      Dowd, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McCartney, Ian

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Macdonald, Calum

      Enright, Derek

      McFall, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McGrady, Eddie

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McKelvey, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fatchett, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maclennan, Robert

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Fisher, Mark

      McNamara, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Madden, Max

      Foulkes, George

      Maginnis, Ken

      Fraser, John

      Mahon, Alice

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mallon, Seamus

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mendelson, Peter

      Galloway, George

      Marek, Dr John

      Gapes, Mike

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Garrett, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      George, Bruce

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Martlew, Eric

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Maxton, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Meacher, Michael

      Gordon, Mildred

      Meale, Alan

      Graham, Thomas

      Michael, Alun

      Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Milburn, Alan

      Gunnell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hain, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hall, Mike

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hanson, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Harvey, Nick

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morley, Elliot

      Henderson, Doug

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Heppell, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mudie, George

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoey, Kate

      Murphy, Paul

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Olner, William

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Parry, Robert

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pope, Greg

      Hume, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ingram, Adam

      Prescott, John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jamieson, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Janner, Greville

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooker, Jeff

      Keen, Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lewis, Terry

      Short, Clare

      Livingstone, Ken

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

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

      92

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wallace, James

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Walley, Joan

      Soley, Clive

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, John

      Watson, Mike

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Stevenson, George

      Wilson, Brian

      Stott, Roger

      Winnick, David

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wise, Audrey

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Trimble, David

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Turner, Dennis

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. John Hutton and

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Mr. Stephen Byers.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Davis, David (Boothfery)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Day, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Amess, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Ancram, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Dover, Den

      Ashby, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Atkins, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Eggar, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Elletson, Harold

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bates, Michael

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evennett, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      Booth, Hartley

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Boswell, Tim

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bowden, Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gallie, Phil

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Brazier, Julian

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bright, Graham

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gill, Christopher

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Burns, Simon

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gorst, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clappison, James

      Hague, William

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Colvin, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Congdon, David

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Couchman, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cran, James

      Hayes, Jerry

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

      Heald, Oliver

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      93

      Hendry, Charles

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Horam, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

      Richards, Rod

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

      Soames, Nicholas

      Knox, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spring, Richard

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sproat, Iain

      Legg, Barry

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Leigh, Edward

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Steen, Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stephen, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Stewart, Allan

      Lightbown, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sumberg, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Lord, Michael

      Sykes, John

      Luff, Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Thomason, Roy

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Malone, Gerald

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mans, Keith

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Marland, Paul

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

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

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Mates, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Trotter, Neville

      Merchant, Piers

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Walden, George

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Waller, Gary

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nelson, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Norris, Steve

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Willetts, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wilshire, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Paice, James

      Wolfson, Mark

      94

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Andrew MacKay and

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mr. Michael Brown.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 17

      FIREARMS OFFENCES (PENALTIES)
      '(1) The offences of possessing a firearm or shotgun or ammunition contrary to Section 1 (as amended by Section 2 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988) and Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1968, shall be punishable

      (a) upon conviction on indictment by a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years;

      (b) on summary conviction by six months imprisonment or a fine of £1,000 or both.

      (2) The offence of trading in firearms without being registered as a firearms dealer contrary to Section 3(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 shall be punishable upon conviction on indictment by a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.
      (3) The offence of selling a firearm to a person without a certificate, contrary to Section 3(2) of the Firearms Act 1968, shall be punishable as at subsection (2) above.
      (4) The offence of possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition contrary to Section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 shall be punishable as at subsection (2) above.
      (5) Notwithstanding that a person shall otherwise be guilty of an offence contrary to Section 1 or Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1968, it shall be an offence for a person to possess a firearm (including shotguns and ammunition) without the appropriate certificate or permit authorising such possession, if that person has previously been the holder of a certificate or permit to possess such firearm within the previous six months, and is not a prohibited person under Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968, and a person guilty of an offence under this subsection is liable—

      (a) on conviction on indictment

      (i) where the offfence is committed in an aggravatged form within the meaning of section 4(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine; or both

      (ii) in any other case to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine; or both.

      (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine of £1,000 or both.'.—[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 the following: new clause 57—Carrying of offensive weapons (penalties)—
      '-In section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons in public places without lawful authority or reasonable excuse)—

      (a) subsection (a) shall be omitted.

      (b) the words after the word "exceeding" in subsection (b) shall be omitted and shall be substituted by the words "30 years".'.

      New Clause 58—Dangerous weapons (penalties)—
      '.-In section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (Penalties for offences in connection with dangerous weapons)—
      (a) the words from "liable on" to "fine" shall be omitted and substituted by the words "conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 20 years".'.
      New Clause 59 —Having article with blade or point (penalties)—
      '.-In Part IX of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

      (a) In section 139 (Offence of having article with blade or point in public place) subsection (6), the words after the words "liable on" shall be omitted and substituted by the words "conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 30 years",

      95

      (b) In section 141 (Offensive weapons) subsection (1), the words after "liable on" shall be omitted and substituted by the words "conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 30 years".'.

      Government amendment No. 349.
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to propose new clause 17, which seeks to increase penalties for the possession of firearms—contrary to existing legislation—and to give greater flexibility to the courts in dealing with firearm issues. The new clause sets out a series of amendments to the current legislation and I hope that they will be commended to the House.
      As with a number of other issues that Opposition Members have raised during the passage of the Bill, the new clause highlights the need for fast and firm action. In this case, it is to curb the increasing use of guns and other weapons on the streets of Britain. The new clause would increase the maximum penalty, thus giving wider discretion to the courts to act firmly in cases where it is required.
      I want to make it clear that that does not make penalties more onerous at the lower end of the scale of offences. Understandably, people who possess weapons for legitimate purposes, such as for sport or in connection with their work, are concerned that an increase in offences can, perhaps through an oversight in reviewing a licence, lead them to face greater penalties. There is no need for that to occur because, obviously, we are not targeting circumstances of that sort and it remains open for the courts to leave penalties for such offences as they stand.
      The purpose of tabling amendments in Committee was to highlight the problem of firearms. As with other matters, we are entitled to point out that it is only when Opposition Members demand action that changes in penalties are introduced. That happened with drugs and drug-related offences when the Government amended the clause dealing with the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967.
      The Government have tabled an amendment, too, and I am pleased that they have responded in that way to our initiative. However, their amendment is narrower than our new clause. The urgent need for action on the issue is shown by the fact that since 1982 there has been an 83 per cent. increase in offences of wounding, which is the statistical category that includes possession of firearms and other offensive weapons. In view of the seriousness of offences of that nature, that is a frightening increase. Within that category, the more serious offences of wounding or endangering life have increased by 128 per cent.
      There now seems to be some acceptance of the argument for taking action to prevent weapons from reaching the streets. Our new clause deals with that aspect too. As was demonstrated by some of the new clauses that we tabled in Committee, it is important to prevent weapons from reaching the streets. If they are not carried, if they do not become part of the normal dress of some people in some communities, they cannot be used. The best approach to the problem is to prevent the recurrence of the worrying incidents that have taken place recently by tackling the availability of weapons and the possibility of their being carried, and thus restoring some of the safety that has been lost to our streets.
      It is important that Parliament understands and responds to the message now coming from police officers. People
      96
      will have taken note of the comments of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis after yet another worrying and frightening incident of violent assault on a police officer. Because the Commissioner referred to being driven by events, his remarks could have been taken to mean that it was inevitable that before long all police officers would be armed, and that we could change the tradition of policing in the community and policing by consent. However, it is important for Parliament to ensure that we are driven not by events but by decisions made in the House. We must be driven by the law and by the success of the law in curbing violence on our streets.
      In conversations with representatives of the various police associations it becomes clear that all three of them view with distaste and alarm the possibility of armed police becoming standard on the streets of this country. That would bring about a change in the nature of the relationship between the police and the community that it is frightening to imagine. The House should not consider that idea lightly.
      The remarks by the Commissioner and by other police officers who have had to deal with some of the results of the availability of weapons should be taken seriously, not as a description of the inevitable but as a warning of the path down which the country will go unless Ministers and all other hon. Members succeed in introducing measures to curb the availability of weapons on our streets.
      Clearly that cannot be done by legislation alone. The way in which policing is carried out, and the way that we tackle the environment in which crime flourishes, are important too. As the Opposition have repeatedly said, we must be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That applies as much to violence and the possession of weapons as to any other element of crime that we need to tackle.
      The amendment that the Government have tabled in response to new clause 17 suggests that they recognise the need to amend the law, but the amendment is narrower than the new clause, so I hope that on reflection the Minister will feel able to accept the wider provisions of our new clause, which I hope will have the support of the whole House. The important issues involved should have been dealt with when the Bill was first drafted, or on Second Reading, so that they could have been considered in greater detail in Committee. But that did not happen, so the Opposition have sought to remedy the omission. On those grounds, I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Maclean: I fully agree that the courts must have at their disposal suitable penalties for the unlawful possession of offensive weapons and for unlawful dealing in and purchase of firearms. But we must ensure that we retain a differential between such offences and offences involving actual harm. We have tabled amendment No. 349 to increase the maximum penalty for the unauthorised possession and distribution of prohibited weapons from five to 10 years' imprisonment, as proposed in subsection (4) of new clause 17.
      8.15 pm
      However, we believe that the new clause as a whole is not on the right lines. Penalties for the use of firearms in crime are already severe. Possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life or with intent to commit an indictable

      97
      offence, and using a firearm with intent to prevent arrest, already carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment —and quite right too.
      With reference to new clauses 57, 58 and 59, trial on indictment only is reserved for offences considered too serious for magistrates courts. Existing maximum penalties for possession of offensive weapons are substantial, and in the Government's view they adequately reflect the seriousness of such offences.
      I have pleasure in recommending Government amendment No. 349. Weapons prohibited by the Firearms Acts include machine guns, machine pistols, many kinds of self-loading and pump-action rifles and shotguns, and noxious substance weapons, such as CS gas sprays. Those are of especial concern to hon. Members, to the Government, to the police and to the public. The prohibited category also includes disguised firearms, as well as mortars, rocket launchers and other heavy military weaponry.
      I see no justification for the possession of such machine guns and machine pistols; there is no justifiable excuse for their simple possession. That is why we believe that the present penalties for possession of such items—from two to five years' imprisonment—should be increased to a maximum of 10 years. Of course, if anyone endeavours to use such weapons in any way, or has intent to commit a crime, the life imprisonment maximum will apply, and rightly so.
      At present the maximum penalty on summary conviction for unauthorised possession or distribution of a prohibited weapon is three or six months, depending on the weapon. Amendment No. 349 would ensure a common maximum of six months. I commend it to the House, and I submit that the other amendments are not necessary.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Again I remind the House of my position as adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I welcome the Government's conversion to supporting the changes, but their amendment does not go far enough. We need to send a clear message not only to those who use guns in the commission of offences but to those who possess them and may well subsequently commit offences, that it is unacceptable to possess such weapons unlawfully.
      Over recent years there have been all too many cases of the use of firearms in serious criminal offences. Not only have police officers been shot—16 officers have been shot or stabbed in the past 10 years—but on the television and in our newspapers we have seen and read about many other tragic cases.
      Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but does he accept that in cases where weapons have been used against the police the maximum penalty is life imprisonment? I do not know how to make that maximum any greater.
      Mr. O'Brien: I entirely accept that. Indeed, if the Minister had been listening carefully, I suggested that there was a distinction between possession and use. I readily accept that, and I certainly do not quarrel with it.
      On this occasion, there needs to be a clear message from the Government that the unlawful possession of weapons is not acceptable. No one is seeking to restrict the shooting lobby or the hunting lobby in the measure. The aim of it is to deal with those who possess weapons for criminal purposes; at that stage, they may not be using them. One
      98
      of the concerns expressed to me in the past hour is that officers often find that they have arrested a person who possesses a gun, whom they believe was in the process of committing an offence. That person will argue and seek to suggest that he was not intent on committing an offence and there will be various plea bargains with regard to the seriousness of the matter. Usually, the lesser offence will be accepted in those circumstances, so it results in a reduced sentence.
      We need to ensure that where there is possession of weapons, and it is shown that a person does not have a lawful right or reason to have those weapons, that person is punished adequately. At present, it seems that the powers that the courts have to deal with the most serious cases of possession, not only armourers, for example—we had recent cases where automatic weapons were possessed by someone who was alleged to be an armourer renting guns to criminals, who then used those guns to commit offences —but criminals who think that they have a right to carry guns perhaps for the purposes of drug dealings. The courts should be able adequately to deal with such criminals.
      At present, it seems that the Government are trying to be restrictive and to hedge about. They talk continuously about being tougher on crime. However, when the Labour party—as it does now—proposes stiffer penalties to deal with the unlawful possession of guns by criminals, the Government seem to back off from doing something about it. That is an entirely inadequate response and sends the entirely wrong message, especially to young people who may be considering getting involved in the drugs trade, that the possession of guns, if they are caught, will not merit the most severe penalties.
      The Minister will be familiar with the catalogue of cases that I set out in the Standing Committee—I will not rehearse them again now—where the Police Federation in particular was concerned that circumstances had arisen where criminals were allowed to plead to lesser charges in order to receive lesser sentences. It seems that we are not dealing with the issue of deterrence, although it may be important to deter. We must ensure that the courts have adequate powers to deal with the most serious cases of possession.
      The new clause is not targeted at the bottom range of possession offences—those who simply happen to be caught without their licence—but at the most serious cases of possession. The Government are not responding adequately or strongly enough to send a clear message to those people that they should not be found in possession of weapons.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to address new clause 17. Of course, I shall be paying particular attention to new clauses 57, 58 and 59 which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I shall also make observations about new clause 43, which I withdrew earlier this evening, because it also relates to weapons offences against individuals.
      I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I find myself agreeing with what the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) said. For years, I have felt that deterrence was an important element in the whole criminal justice system. Whatever excuse people who carry a weapon may give, and whatever device they use in court to try to mitigate against any penalty, the plain truth is that it is the carrying that is the problem. The carrying of weapons leads to use. Unless one addresses the whole question of

      99
      carrying, whether it is a gun or a sharp weapon, inevitably in some circumstances the risk of the weapon being used is real, especially to the police. If we think ahead and recognise that if the police stop and search individuals who may be considered to be in the act of committing, or about to commit, a felony of some sort, if the individual is in possession of an offensive weapon, the risk of use is considerably increased simply because they have been stopped.
      In London alone in 1992, there were 7,700 recorded acts of robbery and violence with sharp instruments. That is almost one act every hour of the night and day. It is interesting to note that 36 per cent. of all homicides in the United Kingdom in 1992 were caused by sharp instruments —that is, 226 out of a total of 622—and blunt instruments accounted for 8 per cent. or 51 out of 622. That is a 50 per cent. increase over 1983. We cannot ignore that continuing increase.
      The age of drugs and guns has spawned an avalanche of crime. I am not simply saying that the problem is only in the United Kingdom—the plain fact is that it is a worldwide problem. However, the one area that we can help and deal with is in this country and that is why it is important for Parliament to address the situation here.
      In 1939, there were 304,000 recorded criminal offences of all types. In 1965, the number had risen to more than 1 million—a trebling in 25 years. By 1992, it had risen to 5.5 million—a fivefold increase in 27 years. Will we continue to think that we can do little about the problem? I hope not. In 1974, there were 2,828 firearm offences; in 1992, there were 13,305. That is a 500 per cent. increase in 18 years. I suggest that 1993 and 1994 will continue to follow the trend of previous years. Is it America today and the United Kingdom tomorrow? As we know, violent crime is out of control in Florida and is dramatically affecting its £20 billion tourist industry. That is simply because of the relentless flow of killings, rapes and robberies.
      I do not believe that we can stand here and say that we can do little about the matter. I happen to believe in deterrence. That is why I put a simple question to my hon. Friend the Minister during the previous speech that I made on this matter. I asked my hon. Friend about the Government's view on deterrence; he accepted that deterrence had a part to play. That is why the Government have increased the penalty from five years to 10 years, and I welcome that. However, that is only one example of movement.
      It was devastating to learn from the recently leaked report which was commissioned by five London police divisions that they can no longer cope with gun crime and that a totally new strategy is required. I understand that there are an estimated 4 million illegal firearms in this country and goodness knows how many knives that are used to impose the will of all of those involved in crime, especially the drug barons in their £2.5 billion business. The only way to cope with those criminals, their fire power, and their wanton disregard for human life, is to have draconian penalties. The existing and potential explosion of drug and gun crimes, and the increased use of weapons, especially knives, are the evils of our modern society. If something is to be done we shall have to make it quite clear to those involved that they will be dealt with summarily by the courts.
      100
      8.30 pm
      It takes some £9,000 million per annum to run the criminal justice system. The Metropolitan police alone costs £1.8 billion. I am convinced that my new clauses would help to stamp out violent crime and would produce considerable savings for the police and the court system —not to mention hospital treatment and the millions of man hours that are lost to the economy through the suffering of victims. The savings would be enormous—more than compensating, I believe, for the cost of imprisonment. This is why my new clauses, which my hon. Friend the Minister spent about 10 seconds addressing, are important.
      I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for his valiant efforts to come up with new ideas, but it is an inescapable fact that traditional policing methods are as out of date today as the Keystone Kops ever were. In this situation we must look comprehensively at how the problem of rising crime, particularly violent crime, should be addressed. I believe that in the absence of the real deterent—capital punishment—we must incarcerate people on such a scale as to deter.
      Deterrence is the ability of the courts to inflict upon individuals an unacceptable period of incarceration. This is what we must address. Nuclear deterrence is the ability to inflict an unacceptable level of damage on a would-be aggressor. The ability of courts to sentence individuals to unacceptably lengthy periods of imprisonment would have the same effect. If it is credible for my hon. colleagues to argue that we must retain nuclear weapons because of their deterrent effect—I believe that such weapons do deter, and I have no hesitation in expressing my support for them —they must accept that deterrence in other fields has to be acknowledged and recognised.
      If what I am suggesting deterred some people it would be worth while. People outside, including girls and young women, must be given confidence that they can walk around our cities unmolested. Within the past 24 hours we have heard reports of the hideous attack on two elderly people, resulting in their death, and I understand that teenagers have been raped. We read every day about such behaviour. It is becoming commonplace. Who can remember the names of the policemen who were recently killed while on duty? We have reached the stage at which names escape individuals.
      When I was a boy, murder was an incident that kept the community alert and aware and was talked about not for weeks or months but for years. I remember the murder of "the man with the staring eyes" on the Buckey braes, not far from Dundee. That murder was the talk of the city for years. Today it would be forgotten within hours because such events are commonplace. We must not allow ourselves to become so conditioned to such evil, ghastly, hideous deeds as to think that we can do nothing or very little about them. I believe that we can.
      Deterrence alone is not the answer, but it has a role to play. It must be part of a package. It ought to be incorporated into our system. I hope that the Minister, who normally has robust views about these matters, realises that I am not someone who thinks that we should do things just because they are good. I have never pursued that policy. Indeed, I have always stood up and stated my belief in the context of the circumstances, and I have voted accordingly, sometimes with difficulty. Some of my suggested

      101
      provisions are very lengthy and detailed as they address each offence and deal with it in turn. I am addressing the need for a deterrence capability.
      If my hon. Friend were to tell me that the new clauses were technically flawed I should understand. It is the whole principle with which I am dealing. That is why the speech of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North was very interesting and worthy of a very careful hearing.
      Deterrence does work. People can walk unmolested around the streets of Singapore at any hour of the day or night. I am not suggesting that we should have a regime like Singapore's, but the deterrence element of sentencing policy there does work. It is something that we should try to emulate.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 288.

      Division No. 195]

      [8.35 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dafis, Cynog

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ainger, Nick

      Darling, Alistair

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davidson, Ian

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Alton, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Denham, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dewar, Donald

      Ashton, Joe

      Dixon, Don

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Barnes, Harry

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Barron, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim

      Battle, John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bayley, Hugh

      Eagle, ms Angela

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Enright, Derek

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Etherington, Bill

      Bell, Stuart

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Fatchett, Derek

      Benton, Joe

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Berry, Roger

      Fisher, mark

      Betts, Clive

      Flynn, Paul

      Blair, Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Boateng, Paul

      Foulkes, George

      Boyes, Roland

      Fraser, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Galloway, George

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

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Garrett, John

      Byers, Stephen

      George, Bruce

      Caborn, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Callaghan, Jim

      Godman, De Norman A.

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

      Cann, Jamie

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gunnell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hall, Mike

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clelland, David

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Henderson, Doug

      Coffey, Ann

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoey, Kate

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Home Robertson, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      102

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mudie, George

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoyle, Doug

      Murphy, Paul

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'Kshire)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hume, John

      Olner, William

      Hutton, John

      Parry, Robert

      Illsley, Eric

      Patchett, Terry

      Ingram, Adam

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jamieson, David

      pope, Greg

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jowell, Tessa

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Radice, Giles

      Keen, Alan

      Randall, Stuart

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Reid, Dr John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rogers, Allan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry

      Rooney, Terry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ruddock, Joan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAllion, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Short, Clare

      McCartney, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McFall, John

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

      McGrady, Eddie

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McKelvey, William

      Soley, Clive

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Spearing, Nigel

      McLeish, Henry

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Stevenson, George

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stott, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Madden, Max

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mahon, Alice

      Turner, Dennis

      Mallon, Seamus

      Tyler, Paul

      Mandelson, Peter

      Vaz, Keith

      Marek, Dr John

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wallace, James

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Walley, Joan

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Martlew, Eric

      Wareing, Robert N

      Maxton, John

      Watson, Mike

      Meacher, Michael

      Welsh, Andrew

      Meale, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wilson, Brian

      Milburn, Alan

      Winnick, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Wise, Audrey

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Worthington, Tony

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Morley, Elliot

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mr. John Cummings and

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Mr. John Spellar.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkins, Robert

      Amess, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Ancram, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      103

      Baldry, Tony

      Gale, Roger

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Gallie, Phil

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bates, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Beggs, Roy

      Garnier, Edward

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gill, Christopher

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Biften, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gorst, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Booth, Hartley

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Hague, William

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowis, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hannam, Sir John

      Brazier, Julian

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bright, Graham

      Harris, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Heald, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Burt, Alistair

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hendry, Charles

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hicks, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Cash, William

      Horam, John

      Churchill, Mr

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clappison, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Congdon, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Cran, James

      Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan, Alan

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

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knox, Sir David

      Dunn, Bob

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Eggar, Tim

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Elletson, Harold

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lidington, David

      Evennett, David

      Lightbown, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lord, Michael

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Luff, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Mackay, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      104

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Malone, Gerald

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mans, Keith

      Spicer, sir James (W Dorset)

      Marland, Paul

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marlow, Tony

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Spring, Richard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sproat, Iain

      Mates, Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Merchant, Piers

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stephen, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Stewart, Allan

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Streeter, Gary

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Sumberg, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Sweeney, Walter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Sykes, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend E)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thomason, Roy

      Norris, Steve

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thurnham, Peter

      Page, Richard

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

      Paice, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Tredinnick, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Trend, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Trotter, Neville

      Pickles, Eric

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Viggers, peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Walden, George

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Richards, Rod

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Riddick, Graham

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Watts, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wells, Bowen

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Whitney, Ray

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Whittingdale, John

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Willetts, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shersby, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Tellers for Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. James Arbuthnot.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 21

      DOGS
      '-(1) If any person responsible for any dog or dogs, causes that dog or those dogs to enter land in contravention of the written instructions of the landowner or occupier, and the action of that dog or dogs causes damage to any form of property, disrupts any lawful activity, or interferes with the lawful enjoyment by the landowner or occupier of the property, he shall be guilty of an offence.
      (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 22—Digging for wild animals—
      '(1). If any person enters land equipped for the purpose of digging for a wild animal sheltering in a subterranean refuge, he shall be guilty of a criminal offence unless he can show that, at the material time, he had the permission of the landowner or occupier to dig for that wild animal.
      (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.'.
      New clause 23—Dogs (protection of livestock)—
      '. In the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, in section (2A)(b) the word "or" is inserted after the words "a trained sheep dog", and the words "or a pack of hounds" are omitted.'.
      New clause 24—Dangerous dogs—
      '. In the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 3, in subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following new paragraph
      "or
      (c) it injures any domestic animal either owned by, or authorised to be in that place by, the landowner or occupier.".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 186 and 187.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the new clauses, as I believe that some misleading information has been circulated among hon. Members concerning the way in which clause 58 will apply.
      The Minister said that the intention is that clause 58 will apply equally to fox hunts which trespass on other people's land even when notice has been given to them that they are not welcome, and to those who trespass in terms of disrupting fox hunts, which is the intention of the new clause.
      I am also grateful for the cross-party support which the clauses have attracted. It is clear that there is widespread concern about the way in which the new offence will be implemented. I am only sorry that the Government have applied a three-line Whip, because a free vote on the issue would demonstrate that there is a great deal of concern on all sides of the House about an attempt to criminalise an activity which is designed to assist one particular group in
      society, without making sure that such restrictions apply fairly.
      Many people are surprised that the Government have given such a high priority to legislation of this kind simply at the behest of blood sports groups without any attempt at proper consultation with the wider community. Indeed, that contrasts sharply with issues such as offences involving racial attacks, on which the Government are reluctant to introduce legislation on the grounds that existing procedures deal with the matter. Under present law, there are procedures for dealing with the disruption caused by blood sports. I must also make it clear at this point that the Labour party opposes and unreservedly condemns violence, criminal damage and intimidation, whatever its source. It is totally untrue to suggest that such violence and intimidation come purely from one source.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will see that clause 58(1) requires that the offender intends to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt. Is not the problem with his new clause the fact that the offence is absolute and that proof of intention is not required, so that
      106
      someone who committed the offence inadvertently, negligently, or without intending to do so would be liable not merely to a fine but to a sentence of imprisonment?
      Mr. Morley: I shall touch upon that as I progress. The definition of intention is a key aspect. Because of the use of the word "intended" in the Bill it will be almost impossible to take any action against fox hunts that trespass on people's land, even when they have been given notice not to do so—I am not sure whether that was the intention. It is totally untrue that only hunt saboteurs are responsible for violence and intimidation. The evidence that I have collected suggests that it is the yobbish element associated with hunts who are responsible for violence, intimidation and convictions, rather than the other way round.
      I only wish that I could be more precise, but unfortunately, although I tabled written questions to the Home Secretary asking him to provide details of convictions of people who had been involved in violent attacks on hunt supporters, he was unable to give me any figures. If he cannot provide such figures it begs the question, what is the scale of the problem? The Home Secretary does not know, but has seen fit to introduce legislation to deal with the problem.
      I also understand that the police did not ask for the powers in the Bill and were not consulted about the clauses, how they would work in practice and their implications for police manpower and resources. My local force told me their grave reservations about the new clause and about the problems that they would have enforcing it.
      A case can already be made to show that the new clause will give one group of people special protection—a group of people who pursue activities that the majority of people, including the majority of the rural community, totally oppose. If we are to provide powers of that sort—I am not convinced that they are necessary—they should also apply to trespasses by hunts, especially when the master has been given clear notice that the hunt is not welcome. Clause 58 does not do so.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because his facts are so wildly inaccurate that they speak for themselves. However, he must know that the Government's new clause applies as much to hunts as to anyone else. If a hunt were intentionally trying to disrupt someone else's lawful pursuit it would be just as liable as anyone else under the Bill. The fact is that hunts would not have that intention and that is why the clause will not apply to them.
      Mr. Morley: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense. I have a letter here from Lord Ferrers at the Home Office. In direct response to my question about whether the clause would deal with hunts that trespass deliberately on people's land, he states:
      "simple trespass, by hunters or anyone else, would not be caught."
      That makes it clear that hunts would not be affected by clause 58, even when they persistently trespass on other people's land—farmland, gardens, parks and nature reserves—although they have been told not to do so. If we have to have such powers—
      Mr. James Paice: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that no one else would be prosecuted if they simply trespassed with no ulterior motive? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire,

      107
      North (Mr. Heald) explained, intent to disrupt must be proved, as clause 58 demonstrates, and that applies across the board. The act of simple trespass, to which he referred, remains a civil and not a criminal offence for anyone.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point. As the Bill stands, even when a hunt persistently and deliberately trespasses—I can cite cases in which hunts have been given notice in writing that they are not to go on people's land but persistently do so—it will simply have to say that it was an accident, that it did not mean to trespass or to be disruptive, and there is no way that the landowner can take any action in the courts other than civil action. Why should landowners face the expense and trouble of civil action when hunts receive special protection from the law?
      Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A case reported extensively in the Darlington and Stockton Times concerned just such a landowner. He attempted to prevent a hunt from crossing his property because he has a wildlife sanctuary. He wrote to the master of the hunt on five occasions, but has been ignored. The hunt has continued to go over his land. That is why I tabled amendment No. 60, which I am sorry has not been selected, which states:
      "A person commits an offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air with any horse or dog for the purpose of hunting, trapping or taking game."
      The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that clause 58 will be applied unfairly to hunt saboteurs and not to hunters.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I agree. I recognise that his amendment is similar to my new clause and his argument is clearly demonstrated in a brief circulated by the British Field Sports Society to Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. Not surprisingly, the society complains about the new clauses, but states that at present the Bill will only make it
      "a criminal offence to trespass with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity."
      The word "intention" is underlined. As a result, hunts will get off the hook, even when they deliberately cause problems and consistently cause damage. I mentioned the letter that I received from the Home Office Minister, which also makes that absolutely clear.
      Having established, beyond doubt, that the law will be selective, one might question how new clause 21 attempts to apply it fairly. First, the new clause will not make inadvertent trespass a criminal offence, as suggested in the BFS brief. It applies to a person responsible for dogs who is informed in writing that the dogs are not allowed on an owner's land. It would not apply, for example, to an individual dog owner whose dog simply strayed on to a person's land when he was taking it for a walk, because the owner must be given notice in writing before such an offence takes place. Certain individual irresponsible dog owners may cause problems because their dogs persistently go on to people's land, and there may be an opportunity here as well for dealing with that kind of problem. I can think of a few examples myself where irresponsible dog owners have caused particular problems.
      There is a real problem of disruption caused by hunts. Hon. Members will have received the excellent document, entitled "Riot" and compiled by the League against Cruel Sports, which gives 270 recent examples of hunts
      108
      trespassing on people's land, causing problems, damage and even intimidation. The 270 examples are only those which have appeared in newspapers or about which legal advice has been sought from the League. I am quite sure that many others go unreported.
      I have two examples here of people who have written to me in response to a campaign by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Both people live in the country. The first, a sheep farmer in Dyfed, writes:
      "Three dogs broke away from the pack and went into a different valley from the rest."
      This was after giving notice to the local hunt that it was not to trespass on his land. He went on to say that, unattended, they entered his
      "land (32 acres) which was being grazed by 39 pregnant ewes and one ram. Despite the intervention of my wife, myself and one of our border collies, the foxhounds chased all the sheep off our land, right through the next farm, and into the land of the farm beyond that. There, some half a mile distant, they merged them in with another flock of the same breed. It took 3 days to sort and recover the correct sheep … Despite the ewes having been climbing over each other to cross barbed wire fences".
      9 pm
      Why should a sheep farmer have to go to all that trouble after giving notice to the hunt that it was not to go through his land? He wrote to tell me that the hunt came to him beforehand to say that it would be coming through on Tuesday, not seeking permission to come through. It was then that he told them verbally, and in writing, that the members of the hunt would not be allowed to go through his land.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman has quoted an isolated case and an extreme one. Will he also acknowledge that half a million lambs are killed each year by foxes? I do not think that he would find many sheep farmers opposed to the idea of the hunt being near or round their farms.
      Mr. Morley: I do not want to be drawn into the ethics of fox-hunting when we are discussing these new clauses, as they go beyond what we are talking about. What evidence there is suggests that fox predation accounts for 0.5 per cent. of sheep, most of which are lambs that have died from hypothermia. That figure compares with 17 per cent. of sheep that die of hypothermia normally. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food itself does not regard fox predation as significant. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to suggest that this is an isolated case. I have already referred to 270 cases outlined in the document from the League against Cruel Sports. I have another letter, this time from a family in Barnstaple, Devon.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I do not hunt foxes on horseback although I have shot the creatures on a number of occasions. I must confess to him that from my own experience as a sheep farmer of a considerable number of years' standing the predation of foxes is rather higher than is indicated by the figures that he has just given. They are opportunist feeders and tend to pick up the twin lamb that is lying behind the hedge asleep when the mother and the other lamb are further off in the field, grazing. That is my personal experience.
      In the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred he said that the farmer had told the hunt not to come through

      109
      his land, but he also said that it was three hounds that broke away from the main pack which came through the land, not the hunt.
      Mr. Morley: My impression from the letter was that the three hounds that broke away from the pack were from the main hunt which was on his land and which drove the sheep to a particular valley. That is all that I want to say about fox predation, apart from the fact that it is not significant.
      Returning to my other example, the letter says:
      "During the afternoon we heard the hounds getting very close to our property and having several cats and a dog in the garden called them in. Ten minutes later the hunt charged through the garden in pursuit of a stag that had sought refuge there. As they went through the Huntmaster shouted, 'Stand back. We are the hunt.' The arrogance was truly amazing. The stag, poor thing, suffered as follows. The hounds chased it through the garden to a steep rise at the top, where it stood for twenty minutes, can you believe, being bitten, dragged and jumped on. One can hardly imagine the terror and pain it suffered before being shot. The stag was then dragged back through our garden, the children blooded and we were offered the liver. To myself, family and friends it was like some satanic ritual."
      Those are two examples—I need hardly quote more —of the kind of problem that hunts cause. We need to make sure that this law, if we are to have it, applies fairly to all concerned. It does riot do so at present. New clause 21 will deal with that, and new clauses 23 and 24 will also deal with the problem of hunts and stock.
      I should have thought that clause 22 was far less controversial than the others. It relates to the problem of badger-baiting. At present, people involved in the sickening sport of badger-baiting, who are often stopped and challenged on people's land, will simply say, unless they are caught in the act of digging the badger set, that they are looking for a fox's earth or intend to dig out a fox, which is not illegal. New clause 22 will help the police and the landowner. If people are caught on a landowner's land, equipped to dig subterranean animals, with shovels and sacks and the associated paraphernalia, they will be guilty of an offence if they cannot show that they have the permission of the landowner to be on that land. That will go some way towards strengthening the powers to prevent badger-baiting, which is a real problem in this country.
      In conclusion, I believe that we need to tackle this serious problem. I am only sorry that we have not had the opportunity of discussing and voting on whether blood sports should be allowed to continue. I believe that that vote will come sooner rather than later, at which time these clauses may be academic. At present it is unjustified to give special protection to any one group in society without applying that law fairly. That is why I believe that the House should support the new clauses.
      Mr. Maclean: We should be aware that clause 58 has nothing to do with hunting; it is all about public order. I shall quote the words of the statute because it seems that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has not followed them. The measures that we have taken to deal with disruptive trespassers apply only where anyone who
      "trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in … does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect of intimidating those persons … so as to deter them…from engaging in that activity,"
      or the effect of
      110
      "obstructing that activity, or …disrupting that activity."
      Yet, to listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that the whole debate was about hunting.
      The statute would apply to disruption at the grand national, for example. Many examples have been cited, in Committee and by Opposition Members. The clause would apply to all sides. If a hunt or shooters or any other people in the countryside trespass on someone else's land with the intention of disrupting an activity, and deliberately disrupt that activity or threaten the people engaged in it—whether that activity be lambing, doing one's garden or holding a fete for the League Against Cruel Sports—this law will apply to them, and rightly so; they will deserve everything that they get.
      Mr. Morley: Let me make two brief points. First, the Home Secretary himself emphasised in his speech to the Conservative party conference that the clause was aimed at hunt saboteurs, as the Minister well knows. Secondly, how does one prove that the trespass was intentional when a hunt goes on to people's land? That is the crux of the problem.
      Mr. Maclean: No doubt if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had been speaking at Aintree on Saturday, he would have emphasised the benefit of the clause there, and if he had been speaking to all the angling associations he would have emphasised the relevance of the clause there. This clause is relevant to all perfectly legal activities that can be liable to disruption. It is not right that they be disrupted.
      Mr. Bill Etherington: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Maclean: No, because I want to answer the second argument advanced by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, about intention. It is up to the police and the prosecutor to prove intention in a variety of cases. We cannot have a law making simple trespass—circumstances in which someone, inadvertently or not, steps on to someone else's land—a criminal offence. Of course we must have intention. It would be necessary to prove intention on the part of saboteurs who go on to someone's land. If they go on to someone else's land and do not intimidate, threaten or obstruct the activity, they are not committing a criminal offence; the landowner will have to resort to the civil law, and rightly so. How could intention be proved? The difficulty of proving intention is common throughout the criminal law.
      Mr. Michael rose—
      Mr. Maclean: I do not want to take up too much time in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Michael: But will the Minister acknowledge that the clauses on disruptive trespass contain a power for a constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence to arrest him without a warrant? Does the Minister accept that the extensive proof is not as strong as he is suggesting in his own clauses?
      Mr. Maclean: No, not at all. Of course, under the laws of our land, if a policeman reasonably suspects someone of wrongdoing, he may make an arrest. There is no automatic right of arrest; we are not giving any draconian power to landlords or old-fashioned lairds to summon the police

      111
      automatically and order them to do their duty—or what those landlords believe to be their duty—to haul anyone and everyone off their land.
      Some of the rumours flying around Scotland at the moment are quite appalling. There is a rumour that this power will be used to stop people hill walking in the Scottish mountains. It is quite an extraordinary concept that the powers that we have introduced to deal with people who are intimidating, threatening or obstructing would ever be used by any sensible policeman against hill walkers in the Scottish mountains. It is just not on.
      The other point is that only a policeman may make an arrest. If a policeman does not come to the reasonable assumption—
      Mr. Etherington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I want to make this very important point.
      There are many misconceptions about what the power involves. If a policeman does not conclude that someone is a trespasser on someone else's land and engaged in intimidating people who are involved in a lawful activity or in threatening, deterring, obstructing or disrupting them, he does not have the power to arrest that person and cannot do so.
      Mr. Etherington: I note that the Minister is stressing the term "lawful activity". What would be the position if a hunt were trespassing against the explicit wishes of a landowner and if hunt saboteurs, who perhaps had the sympathy of the landowner, were trying to do something about it? What would happen in that case, because that is the sort of situation that the clause would help to bring about?
      Mr. Maclean: A decision would have to be made by policemen on the ground as to whether the conditions of the clause were satisfied. I cannot give an exact answer in every hypothetical case. What would be the position if saboteurs had gone on to someone's land and were not engaged in intimidating, obstructing or disrupting anyone? Many people do not want others to come on to their land. Many people with footpaths would much prefer members of the public and their dogs to keep off the footpaths. But that is tough luck; people have a right to use footpaths. Sometimes their dogs stray from the path—[Interruption.] That would be getting into a different argument. The idea that we should make simple trespass in those circumstances a criminal offence is quite extraordinary.
      Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I want to conclude my remarks; then the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
      New clause 21 would create a new offence if a dog entered land without the landowner's consent and it subsequently caused damage or nuisance. That would pose a risk for every dog owner who allowed his or her dog to stray on to private land, or even from the footpath, if that dog caused damage or distress as described in the new clause.
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In order to restore some balance to the consideration of the clause, the Minister needs to show what thought he
      112
      has given to dealing with the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
      Under the Minister's proposals, even if it could be proved that a hunt was reckless in trespassing and had ignored repeated attempts by the landowner to protect his property, it would not be committing an offence. Why has the Minister not brought forward something in the Bill to deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friends rather than simply picking holes in what we proposed in Committee, so giving him plenty of time to consider how to deal with the matter?
      Mr. Maclean: The civil law is there to deal with that sort of trespass where there are no threats, no obstruction and no damage. Exactly the same law would apply to hunt saboteurs. The landowner could write to them and say, "Keep off my land. I don't want you to come." If they constantly ignored the landowner and came on to his land, they could not be arrested under this clause unless they intended to intimidate him, obstruct him or disrupt any lawful activity. If they did that, they would be caught. If a hunt or anyone else goes on to private land—whether or not any notification has been received about it—with the intention to disrupt any activities of other people, they will be caught as well, and rightly so.
      Mr. Michael: This is an important matter because the Minister is making a point that needs to be understood. As a result of decisions in the House of Lords, what is said in this House is important in the interpretation of the law. Is the Minister asserting that in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has referred—where there has been an invasion of land by the hunt on a number of occasions—that evidence would be addressed by the measure that is in the Bill already? Is he saying that, just as hunt saboteurs can be dealt with under criminal law subject to the evidence that he has discussed, a hunt that trespassed in that way could be dealt with in that way?
      Mr. Maclean: I am saying that repeated trespass by anyone is not a criminal offence and will not be a criminal offence under this provision as civil law can be used to stop it. I am also saying that, if anyone—whoever he or she may be—trespasses on someone else's land and commits the offence in the new clause, intending to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt any lawful activity, he or she will be committing an offence and a policeman may take action against that person.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree with the Minister's criticisms of the new clause but I am anxious about the stories that I have been hearing all day to the effect that the provision may not apply to Scotland. Hunts in my constituency operate on both sides of the border and I am a little concerned that people may be able to disrupt or intimidate the hunt when it gets that far down the road, whereas they cannot do so at this end of the road. Will the Minister advise me on that matter?
      Mr. Maclean: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am afraid that I cannot be more helpful than that. It must be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide what laws he wishes to apply in Scotland.

      113
      I wish to conclude my remarks on new clause 21 before coming to some important Government amendments. If a real mischief is being caused because dogs are being allowed deliberately to enter private land and encouraged thereafter to behave in the disruptive ways described in the new clause, the person responsible may be committing the aggravated trespass offence already provided for in clause 58:
      Sir Terence Higgins: The new clause does not say what my hon. Friend says it says. It does not mention "encouraging" the dogs. That is not the point made in the new clause.
      Mr. Maclean: No, it does not have to. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe suggested that people may put their dogs on to land and encourage them to cause disruption. Whether they encourage them or not, if they intend to disrupt a lawful activity and threaten others in their lawful activity, they will be caught by the new clause. We use the words "intend" and "intimidate" rather than "encourage", but the practical effect is the same. If people encourage them, they must have some intention to do so.
      Mr. Colvin: New clause 21 contains a fundamental flaw because it refers to circumstances in which
      "any person responsible for any dog or dogs … causes that dog or those dogs to enter land".
      It does not state whether the cause is intentional or unintentional. The dictionary defines "cause" as a thing that makes something happen. For the clause to have an effect in law, it must stipulate whether an action is intentional or inadvertent. The new clause as drafted does not do so, so it must be defective.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point but I am not relying on that. It is wrong in principle to go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
      New clause 22 proposes to make it a criminal offence to enter land equipped for the purpose of digging for a wild animal. That proposal is unworkable because until a person actually engaged in digging for a wild animal, there would be no positive means of determining his purpose in entering the land as a trespasser. It would not be acceptable to make it an offence for a person simply to walk on to someone else's property carrying a spade, for example, but that is what the provision would mean. If damage is caused to the land by digging activity, that could constitute an offence; indeed, it is already an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
      Mr. Morley: Does the Minister think that it is normal activity to go strolling around people's land equipped with a spade?
      Mr. Maclean: It may not be normal activity for many people to stroll around the countryside carrying a spade, although I can think of some who have done it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members acknowledge that they have done it. It is already an offence to dig out wild animals. It is nonsense to suggest that the police should anticipate that someone may be about to do that.
      Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Maclean: No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time. I must make progress.
      114
      New clause 23 seeks to make it an offence for a pack of hounds to be in a field in which there are sheep. Currently, a pack of hounds is one of several exemptions to the general provisions in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which makes it an offence for an owner to allow his dog to be at large in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep. I am not aware that packs of hounds, as opposed to any other type of dogs also exempted by the law, pose such a particular threat to sheep that would justify an amendment to the 1953 Act.
      New clause 24 seeks to create a new offence in circumstances in which an owner allows his dog to enter private property and injure an animal. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 already creates wide-ranging and effective powers in respect of dogs which are dangerously out of control or injure any person. At the same time, under the Dogs Act 1871, magistrates courts have the power to make a control order over a dog that is considered dangerous —a dog that attacks people or animals. Such an order may specify how the control should be exercised—for instance, by requiring a dog to be muzzled or kept on a lead or excluded from specific places such as school playgrounds. I do not consider it necessary to introduce additional controls of the sort envisaged in the new clause.
      Some of the proposals seek to criminalise simple trespass per se. Unless there are significant aggravated factors, such as disruption of a lawful activity or threatening behaviour or intimidation, trespass should not be caught by the criminal law but should remain a matter for the civil law. As I have stressed, the powers are not solely about hunting: they are about the disruption of any lawful activity in which people may be engaged. They are entirely even-handed in their effect.
      I want to speak to Government amendments Nos. 186 and 187. I said in Committee that I would give careful consideration to the proposals to tackle the nuisance caused by groups who trespass on private land to indulge in the criminal activity of illegal hare coursing, terrorising local people in the process. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on his persistence in Committee in coming up with amendment after amendment to try to focus more carefully on the mischief involved. My hon. Friend was of considerable help to the Government and I must give him most of the credit for coming up with the eventual solution.
      We have now produced amendments Nos. 186 and 187, which are amendments to the Game Act 1831 and the equivalent Scottish legislation, the Game (Scotland) Act 1832. They will increase the fine maxima for offences of trespass in search or pursuit of game, which will cover the evil of hare coursing. For England and Wales, where the mischief is more of a problem than in Scotland, we shall give the courts a specific power under the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960, so that when convicting a person of more serious poaching offences, they can order the forfeiture of vehicles that have been used to commit or facilitate the commission of the offence.
      The measures represent an appropriate response to a distressing and intrusive phenomenon. I hope that they will have a welcome deterrent effect. I hope that they will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House as, in Committee, Opposition Members were keen to introduce them.
      Mr. Maclennan: For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister say a word about the Government's intentions

      115
      regarding Scotland? His reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was a little misleading. The Minister suggested that it was a matter for Scotland as to whether the provisions on disruptive trespass would apply in Scotland. As I understand it, the Government have tabled an amendment to delete the application of the measures to Scotland—amendment No. 28, which will be considered later.
      Mr. Maclean: It is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland whether or not he wishes the powers to apply in Scotland. He does not consider it necessary for the confiscation power to apply in Scotland at present. If a time comes when he considers it to be necessary, no doubt he will introduce the relevant Scottish legislation.
      Clause 58 is a sensible, balanced measure that will be of help to all those who wish to participate lawfully in any activity in the countryside and do not wish to have it disrupted by people of whatever nature or persuasion who want to disrupt it. The Government amendments introduce proposals to deal with the mischief of illegal hare coursing which I believe will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Heald: Farmers in north Hertfordshire have been frightened by gangs of men coming up to bet on illegal hare coursing, who threatened the farmers and their wives. Gangs come up for the weekend and drive their four-wheel drive vehicles on to the land, often with shotguns hanging out of the windows. They shoot out of the windows of their vehicles, shout and scream. When they are approached by farmers or the local police, they mouth abuse and make threats. On occasions, haystacks have mysteriously burnt down a few days after a farmer has intervened, windscreens have been smashed and so on. It is a public order issue.
      In Committee, I tabled a large number of amendments designed to increase the penalties for what are basically poaching offences and to allow the courts to confiscate the motor vehicles used to commit such offences. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would consider my amendments and, true to his word, he has returned on Report with Government amendments which I am perfectly satisfied deal with a major problem. I thank my hon. Friend for the seriousness with which he has dealt with the matter and for the result that he has produced.
      I thank also the Police Federation, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union for all the support that they gave me in tabling my amendments in Committee. I just want to say thank you very much to them all.
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: I support new clauses 21 and 22. I make it clear that I totally condemn violence and intimidation by a minority of animal extremists and huntsmen. Both activities are totally unacceptable. It is on record that more huntsmen have been found guilty of acts of violence while involved in hunts than animal extremists, but both must be clearly and roundly condemned.
      In dispute is our rule of law, which the House surely accepts must be fair and equitable. On 21 January, my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, stated in a letter to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill):
      116
      "The new powers would protect anyone whose lawful activity was disrupted by trespassers whoever they might be."
      In the House, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the powers apply to everyone equally. In practice, that is not true. For an offence to be committed, it will have to be proved that the person was trespassing and that he intended —that is the key word—to obstruct, disrupt or intimidate.
      In recent years, there have been scores of cases in which hounds and huntsmen invaded private gardens, property and farmland. To prove such cases is virtually impossible. I shall illustrate that with a specific example, given in a letter from a lady living in Petersfield:
      "In October 1992, we had foxhounds riot through our garden … When a hunt official finally arrived, he was rude and arrogant and even appeared to think that the incident was funny … I dread to think what could have happened had my animals been free and dozing in the autumn sunshine as they usually do … There is no excuse for them to trespass, and claiming that they cannot control their dogs is a weak excuse and not acceptable. The law requires me to keep my dog under control, which is quite right … Especially in areas such as ours, where there are many sheep, beef and dairy farms and their animals are extremely vulnerable to a pack of rioting dogs …
      'For at least six months of the year, I live in fear when I let my domestic animals outside, I do not suppose you could possibly imagine what that feels like."
      Some hon. Members could not give a damn what those people feel like anyway. But the fact is that, under the proposed legislation, it would be impossible for that lady to take action to protect herself. That is why the law as proposed is not equitable and fair.
      Every year, some 11,000 hunts meet. When chasing a defenceless wild animal, the hounds will attempt to follow their quarry wherever it runs, whether to railway lines, roads, private gardens, village streets or nature reserves. Some hon. Members have intervened on colleagues and pretended that hunting or controlling foxes in that way makes a difference to the total fox population. As they and the House know, that is sheer undiluted rubbish. At any one time, there could be anything between 300,000 and 500,000 foxes in this country. The hunts kill at the most 20,000 a year. Hunting makes no difference to the fox population whatever.
      I regard blood sports as a cowardly and loathsome activity, but this debate is about justice and fairness. I hope that the House will support the new clauses.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Paice: I shall comment quickly on Government amendments Nos. 186 and 187, and follow on from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I echo what the Minister said about my hon. Friend's amendments, to which I have added my name although I was not a member of the Standing Committee.
      The problems to which my hon. Friend referred are widespread throughout East Anglia. They are not unique to north Hertfordshire. In my constituency every Sunday, gangs of people are illegally coursing. It is necessary for us to come to the House and persuade the Government to increase the penalties because, every week, there are people out coursing who the previous week were in court and fined a pathetic £150, or something of that order, which compares unfavourably with the bets that are laid on their dogs every Sunday morning. It is quite commonplace for bets of £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 to be wagered, which makes the small fines insignificant and simply part of the occupational hazard.

      117
      The proposed measures will be welcomed by magistrates, because they wanted the power to confiscate vehicles—something which the magistrates in Cambridgeshire asked for—and by the police, because it will improve the morale of the police who go out and try to arrest those individuals or gangs, when they are coursing illegally, and find it demoralising to arrest them week after week knowing full well that any prosecution will end up with a derisory fine. Most important, the new measures will be welcomed by the many farm owners, landowners and their employees, who suffer intimidation, victimisation and, sometimes, violence at the hands of those gangs. I, too, express my thanks on behalf of my constituents for the fact that the Government have introduced the amendments.
      Mr. Roger Gale: It gives me no pleasure to have to oppose our own Ministers. I am, as is well known, opposed to the hunt. I voted against it in the past and will do so at every opportunity that I am afforded in future. But, equally, I hold no brief for those who indulge in illegal activity, violence and intimidation.
      I welcome the Government's proposals in so far as they go, but they do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary claim. They afford considerable protection to those who seek to hunt. They afford no protection whatever in real terms to those people who wish to enjoy their land without the hunt trampling over it.
      I shall have to detain the House for a few moments because I want to place on record details of one or two more cases of people who have written to me. They are the type of cases that I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will be proud to endorse.
      From Badger cottage in Hampshire, Eric Ashby, who won the MBE for his services to wildlife, wrote to me on 22 March:
      "We have a 10 acre wildlife sanctuary here in the New Forest and have banned the hunts from trespassing for very many years. Eventually, after many incursions, some years ago we obtained a Court Injunction against the New Forest Hounds, but as the Masters have all been changed we no longer have the advantage of the Injunction.
      We have a badger sett on our boundary and several hound visits have reduced numbers and since the Injunction expired we had within a few weeks three serious invasions of hounds. Now the once thriving badger sett has declined so much that the sett is no longer occupied.
      But even worse, our seven rescued foxes in their grass pens, have been so traumatised that even people talking loudly on the road outside of our boundary frightens them, reminding them that a possible hunt visit might be starting.
      This year we already have over 50 families hoping to see and stroke at least one or two of the foxes as they used to be able to do. Now great care has to be taken to persuade them to come to strangers, this is a great strain on us as we do want each visit to be a success.
      In the past all our foxes would welcome visitors, coming running to meet them with tails wagging. All that has gone. It really is a terrible situation we now find ourselves in.
      If hounds are making their way towards our property, hunt followers line our boundary, and the sound of shouting, cracking whips and galloping horses and hounds added together drives our poor foxes frantic … The situation has become quite unacceptable and we dread the thought that we shall have to undergo another season."
      That was this year. In 1992, Eric Ashby wrote:
      "Our foxes were even more panic stricken than when the buckhounds invaded eight days ago, they were climbing the fences, tearing at the wire, running around as if demented. This evening they appear completely exhausted—and so are we"
      This has been going on for a long time. In 1991, he wrote:
      118
      "It is not right and fair that we should be subject to the stress and worry of it all, plus the shyness of our badgers and our foxes being now so wary and fearful of strangers owing to hunt disturbance. This is real damage to our way of life and to our animals. Four breeding seasons… have now gone by without any badger cubs being born in our natural badger sett."
      A letter from Essendon Hill in Hertfordshire states:
      "I have a 10½ acre small holding in the village with 3 sheep, 2 goats, 2 pigs, a Shetland pony, pigmy donkey, 40 chickens and six doves. The whole affair is run for the benefit of David, a profoundly handicapped Down's syndrome 7½ year old boy."
      The writer says that he is the boy's custodian and father.
      The letter states in respect of an incident:
      "I raced to the scene shouting and hollering—the dogs had ripped the backside out of the deer but it was still very much alive. I let the dogs finish the job—the poor animal screaming."
      From Eyton, Leominster in Herefordshire, a letter about the Ludlow hunt states:
      "I could see my own animals just fleeing in terror … and many more were chased in pure terror down my long drive … We were met with what I can only describe as arrogant indifference from the Master of the hounds—we were barely acknowledged when I told him how undisciplined I thought the hounds were as not one had obeyed the horn or the calling of the 'whipper-in' … Some of my animals were stuck … in hedges and had to be pulled out backwards".
      The letter continues in a similar vein.
      A letter from Pett Bottom in Canterbury states:
      "To my knowledge our land has been invaded by the East Kent Hunt on at least six separate occasions."
      I have a stack of such letters which go on and on. Each one is from a person who wanted to enjoy his own property in peace, without having a hunt trample all over it.
      When the measure was first mooted, long before the Bill was published, I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary because I and the all-party animal welfare group, which I have the privilege to chair, were concerned about whether the measure would be even handed. I wrote on 8 November last year. On 29 November my right hon. and learned Friend replied:
      "The proposals do not apply solely to any specific group of people. The purpose, of the proposed legislation is to provide protection for those engaging in lawful activities, whoever and whatever they may be, from trespassers using disruptive behaviour."
      Let us keep that letter on one side for the moment.
      On 24 January this year, my right hon. and learned Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security:
      "We therefore also take the view that it is for landowners, including local authorities, to choose whether or not to allow hunting on their land".
      Are local authorities to be given the right under the Bill to choose whether to allow huntsmen to cross their land? The letter continues:
      "It is quite unacceptable for hunters or hunt saboteurs—or anyone else—to assume that they have the right to enter private land without the occupier's permission. The new powers, outlined in my earlier reply, would protect anyone whose lawful activity was disrupted by trespassers, whoever they may be."
      It is clear that my right hon. and learned Friend believes that the clauses in the Bill as it stands afford protection to all, not only to some. Indeed, to be fair, my hon. Friend the Minister reaffirmed that tonight.
      A letter to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 11 February stated:
      "Where hunters commit other offences, such as criminal damage, the general criminal law applies."
      My hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me on 21 March and said that aggravated trespass will deal with

      119
      "the activities of those who deliberately try and disrupt or obstruct a perfectly lawful activity or intimidate those involved in that activity".
      However, for hunters, like hunt protesters, the letter said:
      "unless they enter that land with the intent to obstruct or disrupt a lawful activity, then they will not have committed the offence of aggravated trespass."
      All that is absolutely clear and, indeed, that is precisely what my hon. Friend the Minister has said tonight.
      I shall return to the letter of 29 November from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It said:
      "The proposals do not apply solely to any specific group of people. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide protection for those engaging in lawful activities whoever and whatever they may be".
      In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the Bill is even-handed.
      I have taken counsel's opinion. I am not at liberty to name him, but I am at liberty to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I shall not, only because I have not sought the man's permission to name him. [HON. MEMBERS: "You should have."] Perhaps I should have, but let me quote what he says; if, in due course, he reads the report of the debate and chooses to make his name known, it would seem to be entirely proper. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is a very learned silk. I went to the Queen's Counsel and sought his advice, because my right hon. and learned Friend is also a learned silk, I am not a lawyer and I wanted to match legal brain power with legal brain power. The counsel's opinion was:
      "You ask three questions:
      Does the Bill at present reflect the stated intentions of the Home Secretary?
      Answer: Yes, and no."—[Interruption.]
      Fortunately, I was not-paying the bill—
      The clause will, so far as the criminal law can be effective,"—
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gale: No. The opinion continues:
      "The clause will, so far as the criminal law can be effective, protect landowners and others lawfully on the land from trespassers using disruptive behaviour.
      The draftsman has chosen to make the offence, not one of strict liability but requiring the prosecution to prove mens rea. This obviously makes it more difficult to bring home a conviction. It will obviously be easier to persuade a Court that hunt saboteurs intend the necessary consequences of their actions, than it will be to demonstrate an intent by the hunts to do so. Indeed I think it would be difficult to obtain a conviction against a hunt which is trespassing.
      Would the suggested new clause reflect the stated intentions of the Home Secretary?
      Answer: No. It would not be evenhanded. It is focused almost exclusively on the hunts."
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gale: I have said no once. We are short of time.
      Hon. Members: He is a QC.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not want to enter into a contest of lawyers, but does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it is right to render people liable to punishment even by imprisonment if they commit an act inadvertently?
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman—
      Mr. Michael Colvin: Answer the question.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Gale: I shall answer the question. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for placing in order a comment that I might otherwise not have been able to make. I do not propose to support the new clause tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall not support it because I have tabled two amendments to a later part of the Bill, which I intend to move tomorrow night, if necessary, and to press to a vote, unless I can secure some form of undertaking from my hon. Friend.
      My amendments are based on the counsel's opinion, which said:
      "Q.3 Is there a reasonably simple way of amending clause 52, to reflect the intentions of the Home Secretary or otherwise?
      A.3 Yes. 'A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air, and in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air which has the effect of"—
      doing various things. That would remove the mens rea, so that is an answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
      The counsel continued:
      "Since the wording would lessen the degree of criminality, in that it would become a strict"—
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gale: No.
      Mr. Carlile: On that very point?
      Hon. Members: Go on.
      Mr. Gale: Let me finish, and then I shall give way."
      "Since the wording would lessen the degree of criminality, in that it would become a strict liability offence, I would amend sub-clause 3 to make the penalty non-imprisonable. The benefit of making the offence one of strict liability will be more nearly to equate the level of criminal responsibility between the huntsman and hunt saboteur."
      Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one consequence of his proposal would be that if, for example, I happened to lose control of my car because it burst a tyre, and it went through his hedge into his garden, I would be guilty of his suggested criminal offence? Surely that is an absurd proposition of law. Yet it follows clearly from the words that he read out, to which I listened with extreme care.
      Mr. Gale: That would be an absurd proposition, and it is not what my amendment suggests.
      I realise that there are many hon. Members who will choose to rubbish any suggestion made tonight or in future to try to make the measure—half of which most of us support—more even-handed. However, I must tell the Home Secretary and the Minister that I entirely accept the possibility that the new clause may be flawed. I am also prepared to accept that there are likely to be differences of opinion between lawyers and that my amendments, which may or may not be debated tomorrow night, may not be perfect either.
      However, I am certain that the Home Secretary has given a clear undertaking that he intended to introduce even-handed legislation, and that the Minister of State has expressed his belief that the legislation is even-handed. I am equally certain that not one animal welfare organisation

      121
      believes that it is even handed. Many people believe that the measure as it stands is likely to prove a legal dog's breakfast that will make the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 pale into insignificance—we heard some intimation of that a few moments ago.
      I seek from the Minister, and hope to obtain, a clear confirmation that he will take the idea away and consider it with the Home Secretary, and if necessary introduce an amendment in another place that will make. the Bill the even-handed legislation that we all believe is necessary.
      Mr. Michael: I commend the courage of some Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who have sought to inject balance into an ill-considered part of the Bill. There may be deficiencies in the new clauses or in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Thanet, North, but there are also certainly failings in the Bill as it stands.
      Unlike some of his Back Benchers, the Minister has not sought to condemn or to deal with hunts that disrupt lawful activities, as he has sought to tackle those who seek to disrupt hunts. The lack of balance lies in the fact that opponents of hunting can be arrested because a police officer thinks that they intend to do something. They can be banned from returning to an area for three months. That is more draconian than what happens to those who offend by rape, violence or other serious offences.
      In Committee, hon. Members who support hunting said that the code of conduct for masters of hunts would prevent the irresponsibility that has been well documented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the League against Cruel Sports and others. All we seek is balance. Those matters are not being dealt with by the Bill, whereas the disruption of hunting is. If the code of conduct is so stringent, no responsible hunt would be at risk from the new clause.
      With regard to the new clause relating to badgers, the Minister ridiculed the real problem and ignored the fact that people have been able to use a gap in the law to dig for badgers and pretend that they have been doing other things. Those are two gaps in the law which need to be addressed. They are addressed by new clauses 21 and 22 and that is why we should support both of them.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I had not intended to speak, but I have been provoked into doing so by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). There are three short points that need to be put on the record. First, those who support the new clause, which proposes to attack hunting, are clearly not capable of distinguishing between an inadvertent act of trespass and a deliberate act of trespass to disrupt the lawful pursuit of someone else. It is only the latter that the new clause seeks to address. In addressing the problem, the new clause is even-handed in its treatment of those who participate in such activities, and any argument to the contrary is ill-founded.
      Secondly, it was alleged that much of the violence has come from the hunting side. I certainly accept that some people have been successfully prosecuted for violence in those circumstances. However, there is a clear distinction, which fair hon. Members will accept, between those who are pursuing a lawful pursuit, who are being harried, chased and attacked by others and who retaliate in a way which is not allowed under the law but which is the result of extreme provocation, and those who pursue others and attack them deliberately in order to make it impossible for
      122
      them to carry out their lawful activities. The latter is indulged in by hunt saboteurs, and members of the hunt who have been convicted of violence are convicted only in circumstances in which there has been extreme provocation. I am not saying that that is an excuse. It is not an excuse in law, but it is a distinction.
      Thirdly, I come to the Queen's Counsel's opinion that my hon. Friend said he had received—I have no doubt that he received it. It would be interesting to know who that QC was. It would also be interesting to know who paid for the opinion, as my hon. Friend told us that he did not. I do not think that there is any value in the opinion because, as any lawyer knows, the value that comes out of an opinion depends on the brief that has gone in to instruct it. If the brief went in from an organisation such as the League against Cruel Sports, it would be a case of rubbish in, rubbish out.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 303.

      Division No. 196]

      9.53 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainger, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Allen, Graham

      Dafis, Cynog

      Alton, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Darling, Alistair

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Davidson, Ian

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Ashton, Joe

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Denham, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Dewar, Donald

      Barron, Kevin

      Dixon, Don

      Battle, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Bayley, Hugh

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dowd, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Enright, Derek

      Benton, Joe

      Etherington, Bill

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Berry, Roger

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Betts, Clive

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Blunkett, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boateng, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Bowden, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Boyes, Roland

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bradley, Keith

      Foulkes, George

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fraser, John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Fyfe, Maria

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

      Galbraith, Sam

      Burden, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Byers, Stephen

      Gapes, Mike

      Caborn, Richard

      Garrett, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      George, Bruce

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cann, Jamie

      Gordon, Mildred

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Graham, Thomas

      Clapham, Michael

      Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Gunnell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hain, Peter

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hall, Mike

      Coffey, Ann

      Hanson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Henderson, Doug

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Heppell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      123

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

      Hoey, Kate

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Mudie, George

      Home Robertson, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hood, Jimmy

      Murphy, Paul

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'Shire)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hoyle, Doug

      Olner, William

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Neil, Martin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hume, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Hutton, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ingram, Adam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Janner, Greville

      prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jowell, Tessa

      Randall, Stuart

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keen, Alan

      Reid, Dr John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'trt NW)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rogers, Allan

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAllion, John

      Short, Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Macdonald, Calum

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

      McFall, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Soley, Clive

      McKelvey, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      McLeish, Henry

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stevenson, George

      McWilliam, John

      Stott, Roger

      Madden, Max

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Mahon, Alice

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Vaz, Keith

      Mendelson, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Marek, Dr John

      Walley, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Watson, Mike

      Martlew, Eric

      Welsh, Andrew

      Maxton, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n w)

      Meacher, Michael

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Meale, Alan

      Wilson, Brian

      Michael, Alun

      Winnick, David

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wise, Audrey

      Milburn, Alan

      Worthington, Tony

      Miller, Andrew

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Morley, Elliot

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Ashby, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Amess, David

      Atkins, Robert

      Ancram, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      124

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Forsyth, Michael (Strirling)

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, Eric

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bates, Michael

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Beggs, Roy

      French, Douglas

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Gallie, Phil

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bendall, Vivian

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Garnier, Edward

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Body, Sir Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Booth, Hartley

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorst, John

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Harvey, Nick

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hendry, Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Cash, William

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Churchill, Mr

      Horam, John

      Clappison, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

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

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Congdon, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Cran, James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jopling, Rt Hon, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Key, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kirkwood, Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knapman, Roger

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

      Dunn, Bob

      Knox, Sir David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Elletson, Harold

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evennett, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Faber, David

      Lidington, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      125

      Lord, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Maclean, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Maclennan, Robert

      Spicer, Sir James (W Doret)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Madel, Sir David

      Spring, Richard

      Maginnis, Ken

      Sproat, Iain

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Malone, Gerald

      Steen, Anthony

      Mans, Keith

      Stephen, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stewart, Allan

      Marlow, Tony

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mates, Michael

      Sykes, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor,Ian (Esher)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thomason, Roy

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thurnham, Peter

      Needham, Richard

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tracey, Richard

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Trend, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trimble, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Tyler, Paul

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Viggers, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walden, George

      Page, Richard

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Paice, James

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wallace, James

      Pawsey, James

      Waller, Gary

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Watts, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wells, Bowen

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Ray

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Richards, Rod

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Riddick, Graham

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wood, Timothy

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Tom

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Teller for the Noes:

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Mr. James Arbuthnot.

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after 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 and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Question agreed to.

    New Clause 22

      DIGGING FOR WILD ANIMALS
      '(1). If any person enters land equipped for the purpose of digging for a wild animal sheltering in a subterranean refuge, he shall be guilty of a criminal offence unless he can show that, at the material time, he had the permission of the landowner or occupier to dig for that wild animal.
      (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 302.

      Division No. 197]

      [10.07 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dalyell, Tam

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Darling, Alistair

      Ainger, Nick

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Alton, David

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Denham, John

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dewar, Donald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dixon, Don

      Ashton, Joe

      Dobson, Frank

      Austin-Walker, John

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dowd, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Barron, Kevin

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Battle, John

      Enright, Derek

      Bayley, Hugh

      Etherington, Bill

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Benton, Joe

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fisher, Mark

      Berry, Roger

      Flynn, Paul

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Blunkett, David

      Fraser, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Fyfe, Marie

      Bowden, Andrew

      Galbraith, Sam

      Boyes, Roland

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Gapes, Mike

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Garrett, John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      George, Bruce

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

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burden, Richard

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Byers, Stephen

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caborn, Richard

      Gordon, Mildred

      Callaghan, Jim

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cann, Jamie

      Gunnell, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hain, Peter

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Mike

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ann

      Higgins Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Connarty, Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hoey, Kate

      Corbett, Robin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hoyle, Doug

      127

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Olner, William

      Hume, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hutton, John

      Parry, Robert

      Ingram, Adam

      Patchett, Terry

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Janner, Greville

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jowell, Tessa

      Purchase, Ken

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Keen, Alan

      Radice, Giles

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Randall, Stuart

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Reid, Dr John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Lewis, Terry

      Rogers, Allan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rooney, Terry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAllion, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCartney, Ian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Macdonald, Calum

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McFall, John

      Short, Clare

      McGrady, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

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

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Soley, Clive

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spearing, Nigel

      McWilliam, John

      Spellar, John

      Madden, Max

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mahon, Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallon, Seamus

      Stevenson, George

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stott, Roger

      Marek, Dr John

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Vaz, Keith

      Martlew, Eric

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Maxton, John

      Walley, Joan

      Meacher, Michael

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meale, Alan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Michael, Alun

      Watson, Mike

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Milburn, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wilson, Brian

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Winnick, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wise, Audrey

      Morley, Elliot

      Worthington, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Mudie, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mullin, Chris

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Murphy, Paul

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkins, Robert

      Amess, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Ancram, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      128

      Baldry, Tony

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bates, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Beggs, Roy

      Gallie, Phil

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bellingham, Henry

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Garnier, Edward

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Blackburn, Dr John G

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Body, Sir Richard

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Booth, Hartley

      Gorst, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hannam, sir John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Harvey, Nick

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoast-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hicks, Robert

      Churchill, Mr

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Horam, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Congdon, David

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Couchman, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cran, James

      Jenkin, Bemard

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dover, Den

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Duncan, Alan

      Knapman, Roger

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dykes, Hugh

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

      Eggar, Tim

      Knox, Sir David

      Elletson, Harold

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evennett, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Faber, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lord, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Luff, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      129

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      MacKay, Andrew

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maclean, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Soames, Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Madel, Sir David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maginnis, Ken

      Spring, Richard

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sproat, Iain

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Malone, Gerald

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mans, Keith

      Steen, Anthony

      Marland, Paul

      Stephen, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Allan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Streeter, Gary

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sumberg, David

      Mates, Michael

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Sykes, John

      Merchant, Piers

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thomason, Roy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Needham, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      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

      Trimble, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Trotter, Neville

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tyler, Paul

      Page, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Paice, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pickles, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Watts, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Richards, Rod

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Riddick, Graham

      Whitney, Ray

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Willetts, David

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wilshire, David

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sackville, Tom

      Wood, Timothy

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 42

      SUPPLY AND VIEWING OF VIDEOS LIKELY TO HARM CHILDREN
      '-(1) In subsection (2) of section 7 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act") (Classification certificates), at the end, there shall be inserted the following words—
      "; Or
      (d) a statement that, either because it presents an inappropriate model for children, or because it is likely to cause psychological harm to a child, no video recording containing that work is to be
      130
      supplied for private use, or viewed in any place to which children under the age of 18 are admitted."
      (2) After section 12 of the 1984 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
      "12A. Where a classification certificate issued in respect of a video work states that no video recording containing that work is to be supplied for private use, or viewed in any place to which children under the age of 18 are admitted, a person who

      (a) supplies a video recording containing the work for private use,

      (b) offers to do so, or

      (c) permits the video work to be viewed in a place to which children under the age of 18 are admitted

      is guilty of an offence, unless the supply or viewing is made for the purpose of arrangements made by the designated authority.".'.—[Mr. Alton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 107—Definition of an obscene article (computer pornography)—
      '.In section 1(2) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (definition of an article) there shall be added at the end after the word "pictures" the words "or any items which store data for immediate or future retrieval".'.
      Mr. Alton: The House will be relieved to know that, instead of the protracted debate that many had expected would take place this evening, it may be possible to curtail both the debate and the need to make the kinds of arguments that people had anticipated would be made in the House this evening. That will be possible not least because the Home Secretary has been very obliging to those who have approached him and spoken to him directly about these issues, both today and in the weeks preceding the debate. He has been open to the arguments which have been put before the House by me and by many other colleagues.
      I couple with those remarks my thanks to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the official Opposition spokesman on home affairs, who has also intervened in order to try to make progress on the issue of video violence which is covered in my new clause.
      I will briefly paint the background to the issue in order to put the debate in context. More than a year ago, I asked the House whether it would support an early-day motion, which I tabled, to establish a royal commission to look into the effects on the community of levels of violence both on television and on video. More than 100 Members from both sides of the House supported that call.
      I still believe that there should be a major long-term study to examine the links between real-life violence and that which is transmitted by the media. Since that early-day motion, a number of cases have come before the courts which have involved the use of videos and videos have been cited in the course of those court cases. I think particularly of the Suzanne Capper case in Manchester, where a young woman was tortured and brutally murdered while the sound tape of the movie "Child's Play 3" was transmitted to her. Quite recently, in a case in Cardiff the video "Deuce" was cited as an influence on the young people who were involved in a terrible murder.
      Therefore, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill provides an opportunity for the House to address this issue and to consider action which it might be appropriate to

      131
      take. I say at the outset that I am especially grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House for their support. More than 220 right hon. and hon. Members have signed the new clause. They are drawn from all parts of the political spectrum and from all political parties.
      The co-sponsors of the new clause—the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne)—have been especially helpful in formulating the new clause and ensuring that it has enjoyed the support of many people in many parts of the House of Commons.
      In addition, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Professional Association of Teachers have given their support to the new clause. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been instrumental in ensuring the support of those two agencies, for which I am grateful.
      My new clause has three aims: first, to open the debate; secondly, to demonstrate widespread concern; and, thirdly, to stimulate change. I think that in all those respects it has achieved its purpose.
      I refer the House briefly to the report that was published only a few days ago over the Easter recess by Professor Elizabeth Newsom and her colleagues—some 25 psychiatrists, psychologists and paediatricians who are some of the most distinguished and eminent people in their field. Suffice it to say—many hon. Members will have seen the report—that what they have said represents a major change from the previously accepted orthodoxies.
      The report states:
      "Many of us hold our liberal ideas of freedom of expression dear, but now begin to feel that we were naive in our failure to predict the extent of damaging material and its all too free availability to children. Most of us would prefer to rely on the discretion and responsibility of parents, both in controlling their children's viewing and in giving children clear models of their own distress in witnessing sadistic brutality; however it is unhappily evident that many children cannot rely on their parents in this respect. By restricting such material from home viewing, society must take on a necessary responsibility in protecting children from this as from other forms of child abuse."
      Those are the words of the eminent and distinguished psychologists to whom I think that we should pay enormous attention.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: That brave volte face on the part of so many distinguished scientists was supplemented by a call that I had today from the leading child psychiatrist in my city, who said that she sees the malign effect of that diet of violence every day in the children whom she interviews and totally supports the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
      Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is in line with the evidence given last September to the House of Lords Broadcasting Group, when Professors Sims and Gray, professors of psychiatry and paediatrics respectively, pointed to
      "a vast world literature, more than 1,000 papers, linking heavy exposure to media violence with subsequent aggressive behaviour".
      I appreciate that there are varying views about that. I do not claim that there is a proven demonstrable link. Indeed, it is
      132
      extremely hard to prove such a link. But most of us with any common sense recognise that video and television images are likely to have an effect on those who see them, which is why I commend to the Home Secretary the idea of a long-term research project to look at those questions. It should involve those leading psychiatrists and the eminently distinguished people who signed that paper.
      I also commend the research of Dr. Susan Bailey, the forensic scientist who works for the Home Secretary. She looked at 40 juvenile offenders who committed some of the worst and most violent crimes ever committed in the UK. She says that, in 25 per cent. of those cases, the youngsters had been exposed to high levels of gratuitous violence. A recent poll showed that more than one in 10 adolescents feel violent having watched a violent film.
      In addition, public opinion has been changing. Last Sunday's Observer newspaper published a poll showing that 70 per cent. of people want tougher regulations to deal with violent video and television material. I was not surprised, therefore, that when my new clause became public knowledge, petitions bearing more than 100,000 signatures arrived in support of the terms of the new clause and I presented them in the House just before the Easter recess. The petitions were signed by many ordinary parents who know that it is not enough simply to leave the matter to parents. However good a parent may be, children go into other people's homes where they are exposed to material which their parents would not wish them to see.
      What control can parents have, especially when, as the Consumers Association points out, many children who are under age gain access to those videos? The Consumers Association published a report in Which? magazine saying that one in 10 of the children receiving videos had no membership card and were not entitled to the videos that they were obtaining. A woman to whom I was talking only yesterday told me that a six-year-old child was able to take the family's membership card to a local video shop and obtain an 18-rated video. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know as. well as I do that that is a fact of life in our country today.
      Home Office figures show that 1.1 million children watch television for one and a half hours after watershed. That, too, is an issue to which the House must return.
      It is not entirely surprising that there has been some scaremongering about the new clause, as huge vested interests are involved. Last year alone, some £650 million was generated by 18 and 15-rated videos. It would be surprising, therefore, if some of those who might be affected did not react. It is worth calling in aid yesterday's leader in The Times, which said:
      "This amendment does not advocate a mindless ban on even the most benign horseplay. It seeks to extend the powers of the British Board of Film Classification to judge, in an intelligent and conscientious way, each individual film on its own merits and to decide which of them should be put definitively beyond the reach of children."
      That is what the new clause seeks to do by introducing new categories of "not suitable for home entertainment" based on whether the model may be inappropriate for children or may cause them psychological damage. The proposal is perfectly workable and enforceable, according to much respected opinion and legal opinion. Again, I can see there is an alternative view. The House of Commons and the Home Secretary have to come up with something that is workable and that satisfies all sides of the argument. I fully appreciate that.

      133
      I believe that my new clause would catch about 3 per cent.—perhaps 3 or 4 per cent.—of the ultra-violent videos. The idea that it sets out to catch "Schindler's List" or, dare I say it, "Toad of Toad Hall" or "Tom and Jerry" —I even heard "Bambi" mentioned—is so absurd as to be beyond belief. No one in the House of Commons seriously believes that that is the intention of a single signatory of the new clause. If the British Board of Film Classification cannot tell the difference between "Bambi" or "Toad of Toad Hall" or "Schindler's List" and something like "Child's Play 3", it is time that we got a new British Board of Film Classification.
      For the industry to rely on gratuitous violence or degrading material to justify its existence is a disgrace. The presence in our society of a depraved video culture is a subject to which we in the House of Commons should return. I hope that the Select Committee on Home Affairs will have a chance to look at the subject in detail.
      10.30 pm
      I was affected by something that the hon. and learned Member for Burton said to the House some months ago. He told us that in the United States of America, before a child reaches the age of five, he or she will have seen about 20,000 homicides. Do we want that disease in this country, too? We must draw a line between censorship, to which all of us feel a great aversion in principle, and the protection of children. With 46,000 children in this country on child protection registers, through fear of physical or sexual abuse, all of us must think deeply about how we can cope with gratuitous violence, penetrating and saturating our homes and living rooms day in, day out. Our first obligation must always be to those children.
      Mr. Frank Cook: I am anxious to nail the argument of those who say that such material is innocuous and does not cause harm. If that were so, what is the justification for the amount that we spend on video material to train our military, our tank and air crews, and those in industry and education? Why do we waste so much money on that if it does not have an impact on the recipients?
      Mr. Alton: In addition, why does the advertising industry spend £1.6 billion trying to sell us its wares if such material does not have an effect on anybody? It seems an extraordinary waste of money if that is the case. The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why we must take such issues very seriously.
      I first gave my new clause to the Home Secretary when the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and I went to see him. He was courteous when he met us to discuss the issue about three months ago. Before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I met the Home Secretary last year, when I also raised some of the issues. I know that the Home Secretary has tried to respond at every stage. The new clause has also been with the industry for that period, so there has been an opportunity to discuss it at length and for people to come forward with alternatives.
      My new clause has widespread support throughout the House, including that of 220 right hon. and hon. Members, among them a clutch of former Ministers. I have also had the helpful support of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who wrote a superb article in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph. He advanced a powerful argument revealing the differences
      134
      between censorship and protection. The effect has been to show the House of Commons at its best. It has demonstrated how people can come together on an issue that has nothing to do with party politics and can be resolved in a common-sense and adult way.
      I am grateful that the Home Secretary has been able this afternoon to announce on television—no doubt he will say more to the House in due course—measures that will lead to tighter enforcement. I strongly welcome his moves to introduce penalties that will result in increased fines and imprisonment for those who sell such videos to children who go into shops where they should not be given access to such violent material.
      Ms Angela Eagle: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Did he see the report today about the viewing habits of known offenders compared with the viewing habits of children of the same age who had not offended? Did the hon. Gentleman notice that viewing patterns tend to revolve around programmes such as "The Bill" and soap operas? The report's most significant point was that offenders are in large numbers readers of The Sun.
      Mr. Alton: I will resist the temptation to be drawn into a wider debate about the quality of our newspapers, but I accept the hon. Lady's point that many other factors are at work in society. People misrepresent my position when they suggest that I naively believe that the only influencing factor in the development of young people is exposure to video violence. In the sick culture that exists in so many parts of urban society, as the hon. Lady knows, youngsters have so little of value or quality to fill their lives that violent videos, drugs and pornography become substitutes. Surely we can do better for our young people. We owe them an obligation to try.
      Mr. Gareth Wardell: In 1982, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that eventually became the Video Recordings Act 1984. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a way forward for the Home Secretary would be to draw to the attention of all magistrates the fact that, under the 1984 Act, they can impose a fine of up to £20,000 for a first offence of renting or selling a video that is not classified for the age group of the person to whom the video is rented or sold? Would it help to inform magistrates that that is already the law?
      Mr. Alton: That sounds like a very constructive suggestion. I will leave Home Secretary to elaborate on penalties and fines.
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman referred to young people and education and to the Professional Association of Teachers, in which I declare an interest. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the association conducted a survey earlier this year, the results of which will be published soon? It found that a significant number of teachers believe that current safeguards designed to protect children from exposure to adult entertainment are not working. In particular, teachers believe—among other things—that the current system of film classification is not tough enough, with some material classified with an age rating too low for its content. Is not that survey likely to support the hon. Gentleman's arguments?
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has given significant support during the progress of the Bill. I am grateful to him and to the Professional Association of Teachers, whose report I have read. It refers also to behavioural problems in the classroom caused by youngsters watching television often as late as midnight and being exposed regularly to violent video material. We should listen to our teachers. That may be another factor in the discipline problems that confront them in our schools.
      Before entering the House, for six years I worked with children with special needs. I accept that not every child will become a psychopath or commit violent crimes as a result of exposure to such material. However, if there is no parental support and things are taken out of context, we should not be surprised that such material may tip over the edge a child who is anyway predisposed to committing a violent crime.
      The second point made by the Home Secretary in his statement on television this afternoon was the need for greater rigour by the British Board of Film Classification, which I strongly welcome. But neither measure would have been enough unless the Home Secretary had been prepared to go the extra mile of introducing legislative safeguards, which he has agreed to do.
      I welcome his support and his willingness to introduce an amendment when the Bill goes to the other place which will incorporate the two criteria mentioned in my new clause, of material that
      "presents an inappropriate model for children"
      and is
      "likely to cause psychological harm to a child",
      among those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will draw up for the British Board of Film Classification to examine when it judges the suitability of films for general circulation in the future. I believe that that represents significant progress. It shows the House of Commons and Parliament at its best. It shows us listening to public opinion. It shows the Government listening to Opposition colleagues and particularly to Back-Bench opinion in Parliament.
      The Home Secretary also said that he will involve those who have taken part in the debate in the drafting of the amendment that will be introduced in the other place. That, again, is the sort of guarantee that I would have been looking for. Therefore, in that spirit, I am happy to say to the Home Secretary that it will not be my intention to press my new clause to a Division. If he is able to give the assurances which I understand he is—from what he has been saying publicly today and in the meetings to which I have alluded—there should be no reason for the House to divide. I hope that we will be able to make progress together on this important question.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has provided us this evening with an opportunity to consider an extremely important issue —the concern that is widely felt about the availability of unacceptable videos. I hope that no one will be in any doubt that the Government share those concerns and have acted to translate them into action. Indeed, since we came to office, the legal position governing the availability of videos has been transformed. In 1984, controls over the availability of videos were introduced in the Video Recordings Act 1984, a private Member's measure
      136
      sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), whose ten-minute Bill was referred to earlier.
      Much of the argument that has taken place outside the House on the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman's new clause has been irrelevant to the questions that we have to decide. Reams of newsprint have been devoted to the question whether there is any evidence that human behaviour can be influenced by what people see on videos. For my part, I have never been in any doubt that it can. It seems to me self-evident that, just as human behaviour can be influenced for the good by what is seen in the theatre, on film or video, so it can be influenced for the bad. Much argument is centred around whether it is appropriate to have a regime of censorship in this area. We already have censorship. Indeed, we already have a system of control that is the most rigorous in Europe and, probably, in the western world.
      I hope that the House will forgive me if I take just a minute or two to explain exactly how the present system works. All video works, except those falling into a few exempted categories, must be submitted for classification to the British Board of Film Classification before they can be supplied on a commercial basis.
      The board may decline to issue a certificate altogether —and sometimes does—or require cuts. If a work is classified, it is placed in one of a number of categories. It might be one of unrestricted supply, or it might be supplied only to persons over a certain age—15 and 18—or supplied only through licensed sex shops. It is an offence under the Video Recordings Act to supply, or possess for supply, an unclassified work, with a maximum fine of £20,000, or to supply a work to someone below the relevant age, where the maximum fine is £5,000.
      The board is formally required as a condition of designation not to classify any work that would be unlawful—for example, obscene—and to pay special regard to the fact that the works will be viewed in the home without the access control that exists in the cinema. That latter point is particularly relevant in the present context, because it means that, if the board really is persuaded that a work is unsuitable for viewing in the home, it can, and does, refuse it a certificate.
      We have one of the most rigorous control systems in the western world. But it is quite clear from the extensive support that the new clause has attracted that many think that it needs to be strengthened further. I recognise and share that concern.
      Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Howard: I shall complete this part of my remarks.
      There are a number of different ways of tackling the problem.
      I have made it clear from the outset that, while I understand the sentiments that underlie the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and which have motivated those who have expressed support for it, I cannot accept the new clause itself. The effect of the new clause, whatever the hon. Gentleman might have intended, would be to ban the supply to adults of all videos that are unsuitable for viewing by children. That would, in my view, go much too far and would be deeply unpopular with our constituents once they understood its scope.

      137
      10.45 pm
      Of course I want to tackle what we all agree is a very worrying problem. I have therefore had extensive discussions with the people most closely involved in the issues and would like to propose to the House an alternative approach which in my view will meet the concern that has been expressed.
      That approach has three elements. First, it relies on more rigorous enforcement of controls under the Video Recordings Act 1984. The Bill already contains provisions that will make it easier to investigate widespread offences. That is achieved through clause 77, which enables local authority trading standards officers to investigate offences under the Video Recordings Act which are part of a chain of supply in their area but which are committed outside their area. That will enable them to investigate an entire chain of supply and will significantly improve the enforcement of the Act.
      The Bill also expands the definition of video work and video recording to include moving images which are electronically stored on a recording device other than a magnetic tape or disk. That will ensure that the law keeps pace, as it must do, with developing technology such as computer pornography.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the great assurance that the Home Secretary has given, does it not cause him great concern that, 10 days ago, the EC Commission sent an official notification to the Secretary of State for National Heritage that it plans to challenge in the European Court the Government's policy of national licensing for the use of pornographic video films sent by satellite television, which enabled the Government to stop the import of filthy videos? Does not the Home Secretary think it very strange and unfortunate that the Government have not announced the fact that 10 days ago they received official notification of prosecution in the European Court?
      Mr. Howard: The considerations that apply to the problem to which my hon. Friend refers are not the same as those which would apply to video recordings. I do not think that he need be concerned that the controls that I am announcing will fall foul of any European legislation.
      The recent debate has revealed a widespread perception that the provisions that I have just identified are by themselves not enough. I want to make absolutely sure that dealers who flout the provisions by supplying videos to underage children, or by supplying videos which have not been classified at all, face stringent penalties. They should be under no illusion that they can get away with such behaviour merely for the price of a fine which they might well regard as just another business expense.
      I therefore propose to provide a penalty of imprisonment to deal with the worst cases. Those who supply videos in breach of an age classification will face the possibility of up to six months in prison, while those who supply unclassified works will be liable to a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment as well as an unlimited fine. That is the first element of my approach.
      The second element involves the British Board of Film Classification with which I have been discussing these issues for some time. I know that the board already takes care in its task of classifying videos and that it is especially conscious of the need to maintain public confidence in its operations. It recognises that it has a responsibility to respond to public concerns and that public attitudes to the
      138
      depiction of violence are changing. Consequently, it accepts the need for its classification decisions to reflect those changing attitudes and it proposes to stiffen the standards that it applies when classifying works. It will mean that some works which are at present placed in the 15 category will be placed in the 18 category and others will be refused a certificate altogether. In other cases, works will be classified only on condition that significant cuts are made.
      The third element of my strategy will underpin and help to deliver the tougher standards from the BBFC. I propose that the Video Recordings Act should be amended to require the BBFC to take into account certain factors when it decides whether to classify a video and, if so, in what category to put it. We will obviously need to consider carefully what those factors should be, but they would include—for example, whether a work may cause psychological harm to a child and whether it portrays techniques that it would be undesirable for a child to imitate.
      Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Home Secretary clarify one point? Would the legislation be retrospective so that existing videos which have received a BBFC classification, let us say for the age of 15, would be changed if the BBFC is required to uprate them to an 18 category? How will he deal retrospectively with videos that are already in existence and have already been classified?
      Mr. Howard: I doubt that it is possible to deal with that problem. There are some 24,000 separate works in existence in the country and, of course, each work can be copied any number of times. I have given some thought to the question that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is a serious question, but I see no practical way in which his concern could be met.
      Mr. William Cash rose—
      Mr. Alton rose—
      Mr. Howard: I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will be well aware that videos such as "Child's Play III" have been very much at the heart of the debate. Therefore, will he give some consideration to specific videos where a referral or even a judicial review to the BBFC takes place, perhaps through Members of Parliament or some other agency that he may care to name, so that there is some way by which the public are able to draw to his attention specific videos which are already in circulation without having to go throughout the entire library—a point that I well understand?
      Mr. Howard: I shall certainly consider very carefully the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I appreciate his recognition of the practical difficulties to which I referred earlier and I am certainly prepared to consider his point.
      Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give us an assurance that, in dealing with the question through the board of censors, we will be guaranteed that it will not merely have a wider discretion, but that there will be an obligation imposed on it with strict criteria to ensure that the mischief that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr, Alton) has brought to the attention of nation will

      139
      be dealt with properly? There are many people who have very little faith in the manner in which the discretion is currently being exercised by the board.
      Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the whole purpose of the package of measures which I am putting forward is that a more rigorous approach be taken. If he is patient for a moment or two, he will see how that package will achieve the objective which he and I share.
      I have mentioned some of the criteria which we intend to designate. Of course, we shall want to consider carefully the criteria which will be set out on the face of the Act, but our aim is that the legislative framework governing the BBFC's discharge of its responsibilities should reflect the spirit of the criteria set out in the new clause introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. I shall certainly consult him and others with an interest before bringing forward a suitable amendment in another place.
      Mr. Colvin rose—
      Mr. Howard: May I finish the point, as it deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)?
      The presence of the statutory criteria will reinforce the more rigorous approach by the board which it has agreed to take. The criteria will also make it easier for the decisions of the board to be made the subject of judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will appreciate the significance of that point.
      I believe that those three measures taken together constitute a substantial strengthening of the existing arrangements. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill for suggesting that the measures go a long way towards meeting his concerns. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and others, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), for their helpful and constructive approach to the question. It has enabled us to produce what I believe is a real improvement on the existing position and one which I hope will be welcomed by the House and by all those responsible, concerned members of the public who have made their views known to us.
      Before I finish my speech I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
      Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way before concluding his speech. He will recall that during the passage of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which I had something to do with, a problem arose concerning proper powers for the police to enforce its proposed provisions. My right hon. and learned Friend has not so far said anything about powers of enforcement, and he is aware that, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, there are limitations on police powers of entry and search. Will he undertake to bear in mind the difficulties of enforcement when he considers the amendments that he proposes will be tabled in the other place? Without proper powers of enforcement, whatever is proposed in the legislation could prove ineffective.
      Mr. Howard: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's argument about the importance of enforcement. He will appreciate that some of the measures already in the Bill
      140
      will help in that respect. In so far as they are not adequate, of course I undertake to reflect further on what my hon. Friend has said.
      Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Howard: Yes, finally, and then I must finish.
      Mr. Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice said that we have the most rigorous framework in Europe, or even in the western world. That may be true of the framework, but not of the classification. I hope that he will bear in mind the fact, which I hope will also be clear in the mind of the British Board of Film Classification, that it is fairly common, for example, for violent films to receive a higher age classification in Sweden than in Britain. Whether we have an effective framework will depend on the board's decisions, and the extent to which the procedures that the Home Secretary has described will influence its members.
      Mr. Howard: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that the purpose of the measures is to adopt a more rigorous approach, and I am confident that they will achieve that end.
      The details of my proposal will of course be subject to full debate when the relevant provision returns to the House from another place. I therefore hope that, on the basis that I have outlined, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Tony Blair: I shall be very brief, because in any event we shall have a full debate on the matter when the Lords amendment returns to the House of Commons. I am pleased that we now have the basis for a sensible way forward, and that the Home Secretary has undertaken to consult us on the nature of the amendment to be tabled in the other place.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and to all the other hon. Members, including many of my hon. Friends, who have consistently raised the issue over time, and helped to bring the amendment forward. They did that not only because they responded to the huge and legitimate public concern but because they shared that concern, often on the basis of their own views and experience of the problem.
      People are rightly sickened by some of the gratuitous and sadistic violence, often aimed at women and involving rape, portrayed in some videos that can and do find their way into the hands of children. We can argue about the nature of research, but surely it is common sense that a daily diet of such violence cannot be healthy for our children. Indeed, I would argue that it cannot be healthy for adults either, but they should be old enough to form their own judgments.
      The House has a duty to protect children. Society has a duty to act through Parliament to protect children. Of course parents have the primary responsibility, and of course in legislating we do not in any sense attempt to diminish the responsibility of parents. But we also have a duty to act to protect children in circumstances in which they would not otherwise be protected.
      It is precisely because we recognised the distinction between films being shown in cinemas, where access can be controlled, and videos for home viewing, that we passed the Video Recordings Act 1984. In order to legislate sensibly, we require, to put it briefly, a way through the following dilemma: how to prevent such sadistic and

      141
      gratuitously violent videos from reaching children, without, by some form of legislative accident, banning serious films that may move us, and indeed shock us, but which do so for a serious and genuine purpose.
      The film that is often quoted is "Schindler's List". That example makes the distinction. I would not want my eight-year-old child to watch it—it would be deeply disturbing. However, it is not a film that any sensible people would want banned. That is therefore the terrain in which we must negotiate.
      11 pm
      By imposing a statutory obligation on the board to take the care and protection of children into account but leaving them with legitimate boundaries of discretion intact, we can meet the public concern while avoiding the pitfalls. That is a sensible way to proceed. That is what we are attempting to do. We now have the basis to proceed. We can add a proper amendment to the Bill—we may improve the Bill in the course of doing so—and show that we have listened attentively to public opinion and yet legislated with care.
      Mr. Alton: On the basis of the speeches made this evening, and the interventions by many right hon. and hon. Members, I am happy to withdraw the amendment that is before the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 60

      EVIDENCE IN CASES INVOLVING INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
      'Section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 shall be amended as follows:
      (1) Subsection (1) shall commence with the words "subject to subsection 5".
      (2) The following subsection shall be added:
      "(5) Where intercepted material shows that the person making the intercepted communication has committed an offence, evidence to prove the relevant content of intercepted material which may include a tape recording thereof shall be admissible to proceedings against that person for that offence.".'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may discuss the following: New Clause 61—Penalties for membership of proscribed organisations—
      '(1) In section 2(2)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 after the word "term", there shall be inserted "of not less than three years, and" and the words "or a fine or both" shall be omitted.
      (2) Section 2(2)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 shall be repealed.
      (3) In section 28(1) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 after the word "term", there shall be inserted the words "of not less than three years and" and all the words of the subsection after the words "ten years" shall be omitted.'.
      New Clause 62—First hand hearsay—
      '(1) Notwithstanding any rule of law or provision to the contrary, a statement made by a person in a document to a police officer or some other person charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall be admissible in a trial on indictment for a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, or in any criminal proceedings related thereto, as evidence of any fact of which direct oral evidence by him would be admissible.
      142
      (2) For the purposes of this section a document includes an audio or video tape recording.'.
      New clause 63—Investigations by the Royal Ulster Constabulary—
      '. Section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows—
      (1) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4)
      "(4) This section applies to any investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary

      (a) into the existence of

      (i) the resources of a proscribed organisation;

      (ii) funds which may be 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

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

      (b) into the activities of an organisation concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".

      (2) In subsection (5) for the references to paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (4) there shall be substituted references to paragraph 4(a)(i) and 4(i)(ii) respectively.
      (3) The following new subsection shall be added as subsection (6):
      "An authorised investigator appointed in relation to an investigation under paragraph (4)(b) of this section shall be a barrister or a solicitor of at least 10 years standing".
      (4) Schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows
      '(1) The following sub-paragraphs shall be added to paragraph 2—
      "(8) A notice in writing served under sub-paragraphs (1) or (2) of this paragraph may provide that the questions may be answered by a written answer or the information furnished as the case may be by post.
      (9) A person required to appear before an authorised investigator may be accompanied by a solicitor".
      (2) In paragraph (5) all the words after "paragraph 2" shall be omitted and there shall be inserted the words "may be admissible in evidence.".'.
      Mr. Trimble: It is my task to refer to new clause 60, with which we are taking new clauses 61, 62 and 63. These new clauses relate primarily to anti-terrorism legislation and intend to strengthen that legislation. Obviously, they are framed with a view to the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland, but they have implications for the kingdom as a whole. Indeed, one of the interesting aspects of the Bill is that it extends to the whole of the United Kingdom a significant number of anti-terrorism provisions that hitherto have applied only to Northern Ireland. It is appropriate that that should be done.
      Of the four new clauses, new clause 60 is general in its extent. While terrorism was part of the background to the thinking behind new clause 60, the new clause is not so limited. It is trying to make admissible in criminal proceedings the results of intercepted communications—what is referred in the United States to as wire-tap evidence. There is legislation that regulates the interception of communications—the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That Act provides a legal regime by which the authorities can be authorised to intercept or to have forms of electronic eavesdropping on communications that are being made.
      Nothing in the new clause in any way changes the range of circumstances in which interceptions can take place; nothing in the new clause extends the extent to which there can be electronic surveillance or eavesdropping. I am prepared to concede that in some respects the new clause may not be happily drawn, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that this is a complex area, and it is not easy to draft provisions accurately.

      143
      The new clause seeks to enable wire-tap information, whether in the form of actual tapes or transcripts, to be admissible in court. Under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, intercepted material as defined in the Act is not admissible. Indeed, it is now clear—any doubt was removed by a House of Lords decision in November last year—that intercepted material is not admissible in court, except in limited circumstances which are not relevant to this debate. That is undesirable. In nearly all the countries where there are serious terrorist problems or organised crime, what we can call wire-tap evidence is admissible.
      A clear example is to be found in the United States. That country, having decided to undertake its war against organised crime, introduced the RICO—racketeer-influenced corrupt organisations—legislation in 1970. We were told that this was the basis of amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. When the RICO code was introduced the United States also provided for wire-tap evidence to be admissible in court. Indeed, intercepted material has been the core of the prosecution evidence in many major cases against the Mafia and others engaged in organised crime.
      I suggest that there is a clear parallel between organised crime, including Mafia-type activity, and terrorism. In any case, as there is organised crime relating to the drug problem in the rest of the United Kingdom, these provisions would be appropriate.
      Hon. Members may recall a story in the Sunday Times of last weekend about the bombing of the Baltic Exchange —the St. Mary Axe incident. It appears that the prosecution case has collapsed as a result of witness intimidation. Where witness intimidation is rife, as in terrorist and drug situations, one has to consider what else can be done.
      We have already changed the legislation concerning the admissibility of confessions. This has provided some scope, but there is still the problem that, because witnesses will not come forward, evidence is not forthcoming. One has to consider other opportunities for the production of evidence. Material intercepted as a result of electronic surveillance is an obvious example.
      It is no secret that this new clause, together with the others that I shall propose, would make changes in the law that are currently being sought by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and I know that they are being considered by the Government. Part of the objective in bringing the provision forward is to ensure that the debate takes place in a public arena and to enable the Government to give us a report, if not a decision—I should like a decision—on the course and extent of their thinking.
      Indeed, in recent weeks this matter has been dealt with to a considerable extent in the media. The Irish edition of The Sunday Times of 20 March contained an article from which, as it did not appear in the edition that circulates in England and Wales, I should like to quote a paragraph referring to various initiatives being promoted by the police with a view to dealing with the terrorist situation.
      The paragraph says:
      "A second initiative is to allow Government prosecutors to use recordings from telephone tapping as evidence in court. MI5 and the RUC say senior IRA and Sinn Fein members could have been prosecuted if police had been allowed to use tapes against them. They cite one double murder last year, in which they knew who
      144
      planned the killings but were unable to act because the phone tap evidence was not admissible in court. Dozens of other terrorist prosecutions have also been dropped because intelligence material is not admissible in court."
      I do not know whether that report is factually accurate. It is good that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is responsible for these matters is present. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to comment on the story's accuracy.
      If it is correct, dozens of cases where prosecutions might have been brought successfully had this provision been in force are having to be dropped, and terrorists are given a further lease of liberty and opportunity to commit crimes—to kill and injure people and destroy property. For that reason alone, this matter deserves serious consideration. It applies not just to terrorism but to all organised crime, especially in drugs.
      According to the report from which I have quoted, both the RUC and the Security Service—MI5—want this provision. Other press reports—I refer to a Sunday Times story of 27 March—say that the Association of Chief Police Officers, the customs people and the Home Office oppose it.
      I think that we are entitled to know why that is. I do not know why, although I can think of some possible reasons. There may be fear or concern about whether the tapes could be doctored or interfered with. That is a possibility, but we have the technology to enable us to tell whether that has occurred to a certain extent. The court can decide whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to proceed.
      Another reason given for fearing that it might not be wise to admit such evidence—it is said that this reason has been put forward by the customs and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and the Minister can say whether that is accurate—is that it might disclose to criminals the extent to which the interception of communications is taking place. It has been suggested that interception is now extremely widespread, and if the material were admissible in court it would alert the criminals.
      I think that that argument is quite misconceived. It is silly to suggest that those involved in organised crime and terrorism are not aware of that possibility. They are of course aware of it. They know that the interception of communications is possible and—I dare say—they may have a better idea than any of us on the Back Benches of the extent to which interception takes place. They are probably more familiar with the technology for the interception of communications. I do not think that the argument holds water.
      In any event, the new clause imposes no obligation to disclose material. We are not saying that those involved must use wire-tap evidence in all cases, and it can be used as it is at present. Wire taps are used to intercept criminals, and other evidence which is obtained can be used. Those involved in organised crime are well aware of the extent of wire tapping.
      Members of my party—and I personally—have reason to know that it is quite extensive. I remember several years ago when the telephone exchange at our party headquarters in Glengall street suddenly went on fire. Some persons were for some reason pumping so much extra energy into the telephone wires that the exchange went on fire.
      I also remember one occasion in 1986 when my telephone blew up at the wall socket. There was a bang and a wisp of smoke, and I got a telephone engineer out to examine and repair it. I asked what had happened to my

      145
      telephone, and was told that there must have been a sudden surge of power on the line. I asked what could have caused that, and I was told that it could have been something like a lightning strike. Does that mean, I asked, that it was a special lightning strike which hit only my telephone wire and nobody else's? The telephone engineer shrugged, smiled and walked on.
      It was probably an attempt by the Northern Ireland Office to discover what my party was doing with regard to our opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in -1986. That, of course, would not have been within the terms of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Any bugging of the Ulster Unionist party's telephone exchange would not have been within the terms of the Act, either. That is a mystery which we will leave to another day.
      Those two incidents merely show that people know that the practice is widespread. The argument that making such evidence admissible in court would alert people to the possibility simply does not hold water.
      Another factor which makes it necessary to consider such a clause stems from the House of Lords decision which I mentioned earlier in the case of the Queen v. Stephen Preston, on which their Lordships delivered judgment on 4 November. That case showed that there is a serious dilemma in the matter. In recent years, the law on the disclosure of information to the defence has developed considerably. There are considerable obligations on the Crown to make sure that any unused material which might assist the defence is disclosed.
      Many of the laws have been developed with particular regard to the Ward case, and to the other cases in which miscarriages of justice have occurred recently. A tension between those laws and the provision in the Interception of Communications Act preventing disclosure came to light interestingly in the Preston case.
      In that case, it was clear that the authorities became aware of the drug smuggling operation as a result of electronic surveillance. On the basis of the surveillance, they intercepted the consignment of drugs—or the money involved—and persons dealing with it. The accused, Preston, argued that he was acting under duress, and that the telephone conversations that had been intercepted would have proved that. Relying on the Ward case, among others, he tried to compel disclosure of the intercepted communications to assist his defence. The Attorney-General instructed prosecuting counsel that they were not to disclose the material concerned, and were not even to inquire into it.
      11.15 pm
      In an interesting passage in their judgment—it is only a couple of sentences, Madam Deputy Speaker—referring to the Attorney-General's argument that there could be no disclosure of the wire-tap evidence even if it would assist the defence, their Lordships said:
      "If the Attorney-General is right, it must follow that, even if the contents of the intercept would clearly demonstrate to prosecuting counsel that the accused person is innocent, he must be kept in ignorance of it, and in the interests of secrecy left to press unwittingly for an unjust conviction. My Lords, this is raison d'état indeed, and I would not hold it to be the law of England unless compelled to do so. I find no such compulsion in the Attorney-General's advice, for even if it gave a sound reason for refusing disclosure to the defence … the logic cannot be transferred to the supply of material, admissible or otherwise, to prosecuting counsel. If this too is to be withheld, a justification must be found elsewhere."
      146
      Some hon. Members might find in that sentence an echo of another inquiry that is taking place, and of other recent cases.
      Their Lordships went on to find that, because of the express terms of the Interception of Communications Act, there was a justification elsewhere.
      I find the tenor of the earlier part of the quotation interesting, as it shows that their Lordships consider that withholding that information, where it might assist the defence, is in principle objectionable. I should have thought that, for that reason alone, and quite apart from the advantages that it might give the prosecution, the Government must consider carefully whether intercepted material should be made available and be admissible in proceedings.
      I am prepared to concede that the drafting of the new clause may not be ideal, but an important issue is involved. It will greatly strengthen the security forces in Northern Ireland when dealing with terrorist operations, as well as those in England and Wales—perhaps I should say, especially those in England and Wales, because terrorist operations there must depend to some extent on communications with the bases in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so the interception of communications would be especially useful, and might enable the prosecution of terrorists.
      The interception of communications would also be useful when dealing with organised crime and drugs, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider the matter.
      New clause 61 would increase the penalties for membership of proscribed organisations. That offence has been on the statute book for a long time, but it is rarely used. Why is that the case? Very often, it is used as a back-up offence—after someone has been charged with a series of specific offences, the sweeper of membership is added. I am told that, during the past three years, there have been no summary charges, and only four on indictment, where membership is the only charge laid. In those four cases, one was acquitted and three were convicted but received suspended sentences. That cannot be right.
      Membership of a proscribed organisation must be a serious offence. It cannot be caused accidentally. Joining is a very deliberate act and cannot be done inadvertently. I understand that proscribed organisations all have elaborate induction ceremonies for members—swearing in and all the rest—so joining is a very deliberate act; and because of the crimes and offences that terrorist organisations have committed, joining such an organisation should not be treated lightly.
      I cannot imagine how it is possible, or how a court could consider it appropriate, for this to be a matter for which there should only be a suspended sentence. That is why, in this new clause, the minimum sentence is prescribed within the terms, and the existing maximum retained. It would be worth the authorities looking more seriously at this offence. I am sure that there are cases in which it may be difficult to prove that a person has committed a specific offence, a particular shooting or a particular bombing, yet it would be possible to assemble material to show that such a person was a member of a proscribed organisation.
      We can think, perhaps, of some of the godfathers who are particularly well known, of whose membership of a proscribed organisation nobody in his right mind has any doubt. Let us consider, for example, the case of Mr. Martin

      147
      McGuinness. For many years, Mr. McGuinness was quite happy to have newspapers refer to him as chief of staff of the IRA and as a member of the IRA's army council.
      He is now a little bit reluctant about it, because my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has taken to naming him repeatedly in this respect, and Mr. McGuinness is now pretending that he is not such a member; but, in view of his past conduct, the statements that he has made and the statements that he has allowed to be made about his membership, I would have thought that there would be no difficulty in laying the charge of membership and prosecuting it successfully.
      I am amazed that it has not been done. When we consider the material that was disclosed in the television programmes "The Cook Report" about that individual, it is amazing that nothing has happened. It is scarcely surprising that rumours abound in Northern Ireland that the Northern Ireland Office has intervened to prevent police action against Mr. McGuinness and that this is the only reason why action has not been taken. But that is perhaps an individual case that it would be inappropriate to pursue at any length at this stage. My point is that membership offences should be taken more seriously and carry more effective penalties.
      New clause 62 deals with what is called "first hand hearsay". When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister of State, Home Office referred, quite rightly, to the fact that the Royal Commission had recommended that this issue be looked at by the Law Commission, and this recommendation is itself a recognition that in many respects the hearsay rules are outmoded.
      They have been largely discarded in civil cases, but I do not think that the reference by the Royal Commission to a reconsideration of the matter is a good enough reason for not proceeding with new clause 62. New clause 62 applies only to the Diplock courts—in other words, the non-jury courts dealing with scheduled offences in Northern Ireland. For that there is no need to wait for a Law Commission recommendation. How long will the Law Commission take? It is not a body noted for its speed of action. This is something that we could deal with now.
      It is particularly appropriate to deal with it in Diplock courts, because there is no jury there, just as in civil cases there is no jury. Because of the absence of a jury in civil cases, Governments have felt quite happy to modify considerably the hearsay rule so that first-hand hearsay is admissible. I think that there is an argument for introducing it into the non-jury Diplock courts too.
      It is important that this provision be passed, so that first-hand hearsay would be admissible. I understand that there is a large number of cases in which persons being questioned by the police are happy to name, while being questioned, other persons involved in a terrorist incident —their accomplices or whatever—but will not give evidence to that effect in court, with the result that the accomplices cannot then be proceeded against in court.
      However, if first-hand hearsay were admissible, the police officers who conducted the questioning could themselves give evidence to the effect that X, when questioned, named A, B and C as his accomplices—or, as is so often the case, as the persons who instructed him to carry out the offences or the persons who planned them.
      The people who are escaping from justice because we do not admit first-hand hearsay are very often the
      148
      organisers and planners of terrorist offences, the commanders, whereas it is the foot soldiers who are being caught. It should be the other way round.
      That brings me to new clause 63, which is specifically directed to the godfathers—the commanders who are going free, whom we know are involved in directing terrorist organisations, who have been doing so for decades and who remain at liberty. The law currently does not touch them.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on instigating and moving those important clauses. Will he, however, confirm that the clauses were drawn together in consultation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary? It is to be hoped that the Government will therefore pay extra attention to his remarks.
      Mr. Trimble: I am happy to confirm what the hon. Lady has said. She is right to remind me that new clauses 61, 62 and 63 were tabled as a result of consultation with the RUC, and that they embody the changes in the present form that the RUC desires.
      New clause 63 is directed especially at the commanders of terrorist organisations—the persons who direct them. I was interested to note that, when we discussed the subject in Committee, the Minister of State said:
      "the increasing ability of a category of offenders, or a criminal organisation, to exploit the relevant aspect of the law to its own ends and to cause intense public suffering and hardship without fear of punishment can justify exceptional measures to rectify the balance in the interests of justice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 March 1994; c. 1092.]
      I focus on the phrase
      "can justify exceptional measures to rectify the balance".
      New clause 63 is one such measure. What the Minister said in Committee is an argument in favour of the new clause.
      I should like hon. Members to appreciate that the new clause builds on existing provisions of the Emergency Provisions Act 1991. Under that Act, authorised investigators can be appointed to inquire into the funds of a proscribed organisation and the proceeds of the commission of terrorist acts. Those authorised investigators can require persons to answer questions or to furnish information.
      As the law stands under the 1991 Act, failure to answer those questions and failure to supply that information is an offence carrying with it a sentence of up to five years imprisonment, so we already have on the statute book provisions which direct that failure to answer questions or to supply information is an offence. That has made serious inroads into what is called the right of silence with respect to the financial aspects of terrorism.
      New clause 63 would extend the effect of those existing provisions to cover the more serious offence of directing terrorist organisations. It would bring the godfathers of terrorism into focus so far as the legislation is concerned. It does not create a new exception; it takes an existing exception which is on the statute book, and extends it.
      It is not a dangerous extension or a new fundamental provision, as was said in Committee; it is an existing provision, which the Government themselves have put on the statute book, and which the Government are currently using. Authorised investigators are being appointed. They are requiring people to furnish information, and that requirement carries with it the penalty of five years imprisonment if they fail to do so.

      149
      I cannot see the justification for saying that it is all right to require people to answer questions under pain of imprisonment about terrorist funding without requiring them, under the same penalty, to answer questions about directing terrorist organisations.
      This issue was referred to in an article by Patrick Wintour which appeared in the Guardian on, I think, 11 March. I do not know whether the information is accurate, and perhaps the Minister will confirm it. The article states:
      "So far, the Government has rejected outright the proposal that it should be an offence to refuse to talk during an interview, but ministers have said that they are still consulting with the RUC about giving greater powers to the authorised investigators and to the admissibility of their evidence."
      I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can confirm the accuracy of that statement.
      11.30 pm
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I admire the hon. Gentleman's brave speech; it is most courageous. But I ask him to pause on the question of hearsay evidence, because anybody can say that someone said something which they did not say.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. Indeed, it enables me to draw attention to the fact that the new clause provides that tape recordings of interviews would be admissible in this context, which would provide proof without giving rise to the problems mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But that point arises in new clause 62, and I want to return to new clause 63.
      In Committee, the Minister said, as part of his reason for not proceeding further, that more research had to be carried out and that time was needed to take soundings. I would like to know what further research and soundings are necessary. Are the soundings being confined to those in Northern Ireland who would have to operate such provisions, or are they being taken on a wider scale and involving people outside Northern Ireland?
      When we discussed these matters last year—I raised similar provisions in June during debate on last year's Criminal Justice Bill—on 22 June in Committee, the Minister said that the proposals were a bit premature. On Report on 29 June last year, I was assured that "full and urgent consideration" had been given, and on 1 March this year, in Committee, that had become "still under active consideration".
      Will the Government place a term on that consideration? As they have extended it now, can they tell us how long that consideration will continue? Or will we be making the same provisions in next year's Criminal Justice Bill? I assure the Minister that I have the persistence—and I know the Royal Ulster Constabulary has the persistence —to pursue this matter further. I think that it is about time that we received a comprehensive answer from the Government on this issue.
      As the Minister knows, the issues go back to the press conference called by the Chief Constable of the RUC on 27 May 1993. On that occasion, he listed a number of what he considered to be desirable changes in the law. When I consulted the RUC about these proposals at the end of last year, I was told that the RUC had a shopping list—if I can use that phrase—of eight measures. Of those eight measures, one has been accepted by the Government in response to an amendment I put down in Committee on the
      150
      Bill, concerning plucked hair samples suitable for DNA analysis. I acknowledge that that was an important move on the part of the Government.
      That is just one of the eight measures on the RUC shopping list. Another three are in the new clauses, dealing with authorised investigators, first-hand hearsay, and the admissibility of intercepted communications.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Is it the opinion of my hon. Friend that it is because of the Government's reluctance to introduce these measures that the Chief Constable has announced that it is most unlikely that there will be any cessation of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland for at least three years?
      Mr. Trimble: I can well believe that. If these are measures which the Chief Constable believes are necessary, if they are not put into effect it must obviously follow that the effectiveness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in fighting terrorism is thereby diminished and the prospects of success are likewise diminished. It leads inevitably to the conclusion that the prospects of relieving the community of the scourge of terrorism are being diminished by Government's inactivity and their inability to make up their mind about these matters.
      One measure on the RUC shopping list has been accepted, three are in the new clauses, and there are four others about which amendments have not been tabled. They concern matters such as proven cases of possession relating to the burden of proof in certain cases, and to previous conviction in others. Although those may not be important matters, the last measure is important. It concerns the need for a statutory scheme to protect and encourage witnesses. The story in last week's Sunday Times, to which I referred at the outset, reinforces the need for such a scheme. It is important to proceed with that measure as well.
      Action on those matters is needed, particularly in the light of the IRA's clear rejection of the opportunity offered by the Government in the Downing Street declaration. One wonders whether that declaration and the manoeuvres in which the Government have been engaged are part of the reason why only the least important matter on the RUC's shopping list has been accepted while the important matters are being kept on the long finger. Is that why we are still waiting? Is that why Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to take measures that will upset the godfathers of Sinn Fein IRA?
      Some of my friends attended the conference of the Friends of the Union in Cambridge on Friday night, when they heard the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), boast that the United Kingdom's anti-terrorist legislation was the "envy of the world". I am not sure whether I have quoted him correctly, as my comments on the matter are as a result of hearsay, but there is no doubt that the Minister made that boast.
      What a pitiful thing to say. To claim that our anti-terrorist legislation is the envy of the world is rubbish. Look at western Europe—Spain, France, Germany and Italy. Each of those countries has been more successful in dealing with terrorism and organised crime than the United Kingdom. We are not the envy of the rest of Europe. If anything, we are the worst.
      It is a bitter pill to have to stand here and say that we should learn from how Italy has handled such matters, but

      151
      we should. New clause 63, with its provision for authorised investigators, would reproduce something similar to the examining magistrates who have been so successful in dealing with the Mafia. That is part of the model on which the RUC has based those provisions. It has looked at why European countries have succeeded where we have failed, and the Government should be big enough to follow that example.
      Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to respond to new clauses 60 and 61. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), will be keen to respond to new clauses 62 and 63, which relate specifically to Northern Ireland.
      I am mindful of the wish of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to ensure that all possible steps are taken to prosecute criminals, including those guilty of terrorist offences. However, I am not persuaded that a case has been made that a significant number of prosecutions are being lost because of the inadmissibility of intercepted material as evidence.
      The Interception of Communications Commissioner has cited statistics to demonstrate that interception has been successfully used covertly to lay the ground for the gathering of material that can be used in evidence. It has enabled the police or customs to be in the right place to catch criminals red handed. For example, in his report for 1989, he says:
      "just under 50 per cent. of all warrants issued at the request of the police have resulted directly or indirectly in arrests. On any view, this must be regarded as a satisfactory success rate for interception as a means of combating serious crime."
      Were the current protection afforded by sections 6 and 9 to the product and techniques of interception to be removed, there would be no certainty that that record could be maintained. If the value of that source of intelligence were diminished by disclosure of techniques in the courts, the number of successful prosecutions could even fall.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government keep that matter under review, recognising, not least, the special circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland. But the new clause, like the Act itself, extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. In that context, I am not persuaded that the case for change has been made. I have listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Gentleman and hope that he will not put the new clause to the vote.
      Mr. Trimble: Does the figure of 50 per cent. of intercepts leading to successful prosecutions relate only to events in England and Wales or does it also include intercepts in Northern Ireland? What is the percentage there? Does the House of Lords decision in the Preston case have any implications for the legislation?
      Mr. Maclean: On the number of cases, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it acceptable if I write to him with the details.
      The reasoned judgment of the House of Lords on Regina v. Preston has endorsed both the Crown's interpretation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and its practice under it in relation to warrants used for the prevention or detection of serious crime. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that response helpful.
      On new clause 61, except in the case of murder—where the mandatory life sentence reflects the unique wickedness
      152
      of deliberately taking another person's life—the Government are not in favour of introducing minimum sentences. We do not think that minimum sentences would help the courts to sentence justly in the wide variety of cases that come before them.
      A minimum sentence must be low enough to allow the courts to make allowance for cases where there are exceptional mitigating circumstances. But setting a low minimum sentence is not only fairly pointless; it can also give the public a false impression of how seriously the authorities view the offence. If the minimum sentence were set too high, there would be a risk that some offenders would be acquitted. That could happen either because the punishment appears excessive when extenuating circumstances are taken into account or, as can and has happened, because a jury is unwilling to convict for a particular offence as it believes that the punishment prescribed by law is too severe, even in the absence of extenuating circumstances.
      For those reasons, it would be wrong to depart from our long-established policy on the subject, even where, as in this instance, we, too, regard the offence as serious. I hope that, in view of those comments, the hon. Gentleman will not wish to push new clause 61 to a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office will be able to respond to new clauses 62 and 63.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has already sought to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 by tabling similar new clauses in Committee. Those new clauses were ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I shall not, therefore, seek to give all those explanations in detail, but shall deal with them as swiftly as I can.
      New clause 62 would allow hearsay evidence to be admissible in the trial of terrorist-related crimes in Northern Ireland. There must be a sound basis on which the court can satisfy itself that such evidence is reliable. There are a number of fundamental principles at stake.
      First, there would be no recourse to cross-examination or any opportunity for the court to assess the demeanour of the maker of the statement in the witness box. Secondly, the evidence contained in the statement would not have been given on oath. Further, in the case of statements made by accomplices or by others involved in criminal activity, there are added grounds for excluding their untested and unsworn testimony. It is not hard to imagine the motives that such persons would have for implicating others maliciously. There is always the danger that mistakes might be made, either innocently or deliberately, by the person recording the statement.
      It is not an easy issue. It requires careful consideration, with is precisely what has taken place. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is utterly committed to keeping the criminal law as effective as possible against terrorism by a process of continuing and careful review. We have concluded that the proposed change to the law in Northern Ireland would not be appropriate. It is obviously very important that the justice system should be seen to maintain its reputation for fairness.
      Having looked long and hard at the Chief Constable's proposal, we have had to conclude that it does not conform to the minimum standards of fairness essential for any

      153
      system of justice. It is vital that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland should not be tarnished by unfair procedures. We naturally consulted the Northern Ireland judiciary, and their views are consistent with the Government's approach. In those circumstances, I must ask for that new clause not to be pressed. The House has also debated new clause 63 more than once, and the hon. Gentleman said that he might bring it forward again. It would further limit the right of silence of those suspected of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland. As with the other new clause, fundamental principles must be taken into account.
      The general right not to be prejudiced by refusing to answer questions about involvement in a criminal offence derives from the basic principle that in our system of justice, the burden of proof in a criminal case is placed firmly on the prosecution.
      That points to the overriding need to treat any changes to that part of the law with great care and much seriousness. That matter is under detailed and careful consideration as part of a package of measures proposed by the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland last year. It would be in the best interests of the Northern Ireland criminal justice system and of the whole Northern Ireland community not to legislate in haste only to repent at leisure. It is a sensitive issue and achieving a balance is both vital and difficult. I therefore ask that new clause 63 should not be pressed.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Roger Stott: I find myself in a unique situation, in that I agree with the comments of both Ministers in respect of new clauses 61, 62 and 63 and the arguments that they advanced for rejecting them. The briefings that the Ministers were given by their civil servants are almost as good as those that I received, so I need not deploy further argument.
      New clause 60, however, merits brief examination. Before I entered the House 21 years ago, I worked as a telephone engineer for what was then the Post Office and is now BT. Members of my union and my colleagues had to institute telephone tapping when the appropriate authority was given, so I am familiar with the technicalities.
      Tapping a person's telephone or intercepting their mail should be done only in extreme circumstances, because it infringes the individual's civil liberties. A fine line should be drawn between action against potential terrorism and the corrosive effect on civil liberties of telephone tapping or mail interception.
      I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I could be persuaded that in certain circumstances, there might be reasons for tapping or interception. However, consistent with our arguments in respect of prevention of terrorism Act renewal orders and emergency provisions Acts, it is important that if evidence is gathered in a correct and proper manner, a warrant should be issued by a magistrate or another member of the judiciary. Ministers should not be given the power to tap a person's telephone on the basis suggested by the hon. Member for Upper Bann.
      I do not know whether the Government are prepared to look at the matter again in another place in the light of what has been said. Provided that there are the safeguards that I have just described—for example, where there is sufficient
      154
      evidence—a magistrate or other judicial authority can give the authority for that telephone to be tapped. Extreme circumstances involving terrorism might well be a reason for so doing, but I stress that it must be done not by a Minister but by a judicial authority. If that is the case, I am prepared to listen to the arguments.
      Mr. Trimble: I am interested in what the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), responding for the Opposition, said about regard to the new clause, but I suggest that he has misunderstood its extent. What he said was an acceptance that the interception of communications might be permissible in certain circumstances. The new clause was not relating to when the interception might take place. I can understand the safeguards that he mentioned about when it might.
      The new clause was directed only towards the admissibility in evidence of interception that is taking place under existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman did not address that issue. I wish to underline that issue, because my argument was simply that if the interception is taking place, the material should be admissible. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the views expressed by the Minister, but will not press the new clause on this occasion.
      I now refer to the points that were made by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box while we are debating the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is usually a Home Office matter. That reflects accurately the fact that it is not a parochial English Bill, but a United Kingdom Bill. It is appropriate that he should attend. If some hon. Members in Committee who were complaining about the absence of Scottish Ministers on appropriate occasions were here this evening, they would be quick to draw the parallel. I am told they will be here tomorrow and may well plead this welcome precedent.
      I am disappointed with what the Minister said about new clause 62. It seemed to be a clear rejection of the proposal. I was surprised at the terms on which he rejected it when one considers that the royal commission said that the issue should be looked at again, and when the clear implication of the royal commission's discussion is moving towards the admissibility of such evidence.
      The terms on which the Minister rejected the new clause seemed to suggest that his mind is closed on the issue. Before reading out the brief that was given to him, he should have looked again at what the royal commission said and addressed clearly my point that we are dealing in a case of a non-jury trial. That issue is appropriate and should have been taken into consideration.
      I am glad that new clause 63 is still under consideration and hope that its consideration will be completed before we come to next year's criminal justice Bill. Having said that, I have no desire to push these matters to a vote, because I do not wish the Government to vote against sensible measures that they will eventually have to adopt.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 66

      TOUTING
      '[].—(1) A person commits an offence if he—

      (a) loiters or solicits in a street or public place, or

      (b) solicits from a motor vehicle in a street or public place for the purpose of procuring a passenger for a hire and reward vehicle.

      155
      (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
      (3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Arrestable Offence) at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted—
      "(h) an offence under section [] of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Touting from or for a vehicle)."
      (4) For the purposes of this section—
      "hire and reward vehicle" means a vehicle used or intended to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, whether or not licensed as such, other than a licensed taxi or public service vehicle;
      "licensed taxi" means—

      (i) in relation to the City of London and Metropolitan Police District, a vehicle licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, and

      (ii) in relation to any other district in England and Wales, a vehicle licensed by the local authority for that district under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act or any similar enactment; and

      "public service vehicle" has the meaning given in section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981.'.—[Mr. Bendall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I declare that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association in the House; that interest is recorded in the Register of Members' interests.
      For the first time tonight, we have the opportunity of putting right an injustice—something that I believe has been wrong for a very long time. Let me deal first with the reasons behind the new clause. First, it is true to say that it has received all-party support. There have been more than 70 signatures in support of it.
      New clause 66 would do away with the injustice that has existed for a long time with regard to touting. Touting is illegal but it is a civil, not a criminal, offence. Following my discussions with the Minister for Transport in London, who is here tonight, I believe I can say that he is not unhappy with the new clause. From other discussions, I understand that the Home Office is also not unhappy with it.
      There has been tremendous support for the new clause from various elements of the cab trade and elsewhere. For example, the graded private hire companies, the Metropolitan police, in the form of the Public Carriage Office, and the Consumers Association have all supported it with a view to seeing an end to the injustice and even abuse that often befalls people travelling in certain vehicles. Most important, the British Transport police have also been extremely concerned that they do not have the necessary powers to deal with the increasing violence and aggression against tourists of those plying for hire. Many of the problems occur outside stations and clubs where innocent people are often preyed on by those touting illegally for business. New clause 66 would outlaw the problem, just as prostitution and kerb crawling have been dealt with in the past.
      In view of the signs that the Home Office and the Department of Transport have given me, I hope that, even if they are not over-happy with the wording of the new clause—I am not wedded to it—they will be able to give a firm undertaking that the principle will be accepted in another place. I should be happy to accept such an undertaking.
      We have a unique opportunity to close the door against three major problems. First, we have the opportunity to
      156
      make women safer in hired vehicles. Many women have been raped or abused in such vehicles. Secondly, we have the opportunity to make hired vehicles safer. Many people do not realise that when they travel in them they are uninsured, which is a major worry. We also have the opportunity to help the black cab system, which is recognised as the finest in the world.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is looking at me; I am coming to the end of my remarks. Finally, we also have the opportunity to end the abuse of the social security system. Raids on stations have led to the discovery that many people who work in the mini-cab trade are claiming social security. Such people would be caught, which would save the taxpayer and the Exchequer a considerable amount of money. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept new clause 66.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: My friend who moved the new clause has my complete support. Twenty years ago, when I was a member of Sheffield city council, I began to move in the same direction. It seemed wrong that people could pick up passengers without being insured, thereby putting those passengers at risk. One could not be sure about the quality of the vehicle or the driver or his safety as a person. I understand from what I have been told by the Minister that the new clause finds favour with the Government and, 20 years on, I feel satisfied that a wrong is about to be righted. If the Minister says that it is fine and that he will change the wording, I shall go to bed a much happier man. It is not very often that one makes a dream come true, but tonight we may well do just that. If the Minister nods his head now, I shall shut up and sit down.
      Mr. Maclean indicated assent.
      Mr. Bermingham: He has nodded; we have done it; I thank my hon. Friends.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Maclean: The purpose of the new clause is the laudable one of getting rid of the problem of people touting for passengers in cars not licensed as taxis. It is a serious problem and one that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has seen for himself on the streets of some of our provincial cities as well as London.
      There are two aspects to the problem. The most serious is the tout who preys on strangers and tourists, especially at our important stations and international airports. These men set out to fleece their victims. If they protest, passengers are likely to lose their luggage— if not worse. The police at London stations and at Heathrow struggle to deal with the problem in the present legal context.
      Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Maclean: Very briefly.
      Mr. Enright: Will the Minister make it clear that, in talking about tourists, he is talking not merely about people from foreign countries but about people from my constituency who have been done by the very drivers to whom he refers when they have come to London?
      Mr. Maclean: Clearly, a tourist is everyone else except ourselves when we are travelling.
      The other aspect is in relation to circumstances in which touts who do not own the cars concerned offer the services

      157
      of minicabs or private hire vehicles in the street or in which the vehicle drivers offer their services outside pubs and clubs at closing time. The passenger who accepts a ride in those circumstances is at risk. By acting as an unlicensed taxi, the driver has almost certainly abrogated his insurance and if anything goes wrong, the passenger will have to rely on the good will of the insurance company or, failing that, the agreement between the Department of Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau. The vehicles in which they ride may not be up to the standard of a taxi and the driver may not know where he is going or the best way to get there.
      We commend the principles behind the new clause, but before we can advise the House to accept it, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London needs to be sure that it will do all that it seeks to do and no more. My hon. Friend especially wants to ensure that touts at airports and railway stations would be caught and we may need to define the terms "street" and "public place" used in the clause to ensure that we catch them.
      Representations have been made to us to the effect that, as drafted, the new clause could have an adverse effect on legitimately licensed private hire vehicles. Outside London, such vehicles usually carry signs identifying themselves for what they are. Their drivers could have problems under the present wording if they were parked at the roadside or were in a public place between jobs, especially if they were sitting in the car. How could they show that they were not loitering for the purposes of procuring a passenger, when they were carrying a sign proclaiming that they were available for hire—even though it is by telephone booking?
      To cut out any more debate, I ask my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) if he will withdraw the new clause and discuss its contents with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London with a view to a more satisfactory clause being tabled in the other place, which would win wide support from both Houses of Parliament.
      Mr. Bendall: I am happy to do so as long as the new clause is accepted in principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As new clause 68 raises complex and difficult issues relating to religious belief, and as the Minister of State has kindly agreed to have a personal meeting with those seeking the protection of the new clause, I invite the House to agree that no hon. Member should seek to move it.

    New Clause 69

      PROHIBITION ON USE OF CELLS FROM EMBRYOS OR FOETUSES
      '(1) The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After section 3 there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Prohibition in connection with germ cells.
      3A.—(1) No person shall, for the purpose of providing fertility services for any woman, use female germ cells taken or derived from an embryo or a foetus or use embryos created by using such cells.
      (2) In this section—
      'female germ cells' means cells of the female germ line and includes such cells at any stage of maturity and accordingly include eggs; and
      158
      'fertility services' means medical, surgical or obstetric services provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children."
      (3) In section 41(1)(a) (offences under the Act) after the words "section 3(2)" there shall be inserted ", 3A".'.— [Dame Jill Knight.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dame Jill Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Let me cheer my right hon. and hon. Friends with the news that I do not propose to weary the House with a lengthy speech. On 22 February, I was given leave to introduce a Bill to prohibit the use of eggs from aborted girl babies, eggs which would be fertilised in a test tube and inserted into women who wished to become pregnant. Neither my Bill nor the new clause does more than that.
      The new clause would not in any way affect the research that is presently carried out using aborted babies. It has nothing to do with the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, mental handicap or anything else of that nature. It would not affect the usage of organs from cadavers. It is specific, narrow and necessary.
      I hasten to explain that the eggs for fertilisation procedure is not yet possible, although I understand that eggs drawn from aborted mice have been used, and that within a reasonable time the process will become possible with human beings.
      The very suggestion has profoundly shocked hundreds of thousands of people all over Britain. Probably all hon. Members have had letters from their constituents expressing abhorrence. I have had enough to fill a filing cabinet. The unanimous view is that it is wrong to get rid of an unwanted baby to make a wanted one, and to have to admit to a child that his mother was never allowed even to be born, and that he can never know the first thing about her—how she looked, what her attributes were or what her medical history might have been had she been allowed to live. As a life continues, those factors can become important.
      Such activities could herald the start of a lucrative market in aborted foetuses. Becoming pregnant so that the aborted foetus could be used in that way could be a brand new way of making money. All those possibilities are appalling, especially when there are millions of women of childbearing age walking around with perfectly normal, fully formed mature eggs that could be donated.
      I want to send a message out—
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Dame Jill Knight: I promised to be awfully quick. I shall take only one intervention.
      Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Lady had any discussions with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority? Some people believe that research would be affected. Is the hon. Lady absolutely sure that it would not?
      Dame Jill Knight: Absolutely sure. I have had discussions with the authority. It knows what my intention is, and why.
      I want to send a message to scientists that there is no point in spending any more time on research in that area, or in messing about with aborted mouse eggs, rat eggs or anything similar. The end product from using aborted human eggs for fertilisation purposes will simply not be

      159
      allowed to be used. There are occasions when the House must assert its authority and make it clear that scientists sometimes go too far.
      The new clause would insert after section 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 a new section that would prohibit the use of
      "female germ cells"—
      that definition includes immature foetal eggs—
      "taken or derived from an embryo or a foetus or"
      the use of
      "embryos created by using such cells",
      to achieve a pregnancy.
      The wording is most carefully drawn and the prohibition would apply to all current and all expected future techniques for treating infertility, such as in vitro fertilisation and transplants of foetal ovarian tissue—just that narrow point—or the use of early female germ cells from an embryo before the ovaries have developed.
      The new clause is a catch-all, intended to stop what I have described as an abhorrent practice, and I am assured that it will do what it is intended to do. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with whom I have talked at length on the subject. She and the officers from her Department have helped and guided me through a river of procedural rocks and currents to reach the shore of my intention, and only that narrow shore. I can assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is no intention to do anything more than that. I am glad to have the support of the Government and many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I commend new clause 69 to the House.
      The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has spoken about her new clause with characteristic flair and commitment. I pay a warm tribute to her for the strength of feeling with which she addressed the House and her persistence in bringing forward the new clause. My hon. Friend has spoken for a great number of people both inside and outside the House. She expressed with clarity and sensitivity her repugnance at the notion of creating a life from an aborted foetus. Her speech hit a nerve. Like me, many people will recognise and share the feeling of revulsion that she described.
      The House must face this important and emotionally charged issue today on a free vote. I shall vote in favour of the new clause. However, I shall take this opportunity briefly to set out some of the background and in particular to give a strong commendation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for its consultation document on donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception. The Government acknowledge the sorrow and sadness that infertility can cause. Medical science has made great progress, and we can now bring hope to many couples through in vitro fertilisation treatment.
      The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was set up under the Act—the first statutory authority in the world—to control and regulate embryo research and new fertility techniques. It has already established an excellent record. Its two annual reports and the consultation documents already under way have led to further improvements and safeguards, which means that public opinion and the concerns widely expressed are properly addressed.
      160
      Earlier this year, as a result of media reports of the developments in infertility research using eggs from aborted foetuses, the authority, with the Government's support, brought forward the consultation exercise that was promised in its 1993 annual report.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can the Secretary of State tell the House what would be the effect of the new clause, if it is passed tonight, on the consultation process that is being carried out by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?
      Mrs. Bottomley: If I may put tonight's debate in precisely that context, that was exactly the point that I was making when the hon. Lady intervened. Of course, there is a consultation process under way and I shall address that point in a moment.
      It was a result of the concern on this matter that led the authority to bring forward its document entitled "Donated Ovarian Tissue in Embryo Research and Assisted Conception". I urge those—as the hon. Lady has obviously done—who are concerned with the moral and ethical questions raised by the medical and scientific advances to seek a copy of that document if they have not already done so and to let the authority have their views. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
      When the document was published, I announced that the Government looked forward to receiving advice from the authority on those matters, after which we would consider what further action, if any, was required. As the procedures that the new clause seeks to ban are not yet possible, there are authoritative arguments—I imagine that that is the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was seeking to make—for waiting until the consultation exercise ends before considering legislative controls.
      So far, the authority has issued 19,000 copies of the consultation document and received in excess of 3,600 representations. The level of response led the authority to extend the consultation period until mid-July. The House will wish to consider whether we are justified in considering taking action on this issue before the general public and organisations have taken full advantage of the invitation to make their views known. Hon. Members will wish to consider this matter when they are deciding whether to support my hon. Friend's new clause.
      The authority's document does, of course, go much wider than the subject of the new clause. For instance, in addition to those aspects relating to eggs from foetuses, the authority is seeking comments on whether ovarian tissue or eggs from live donors or from cadavers should be used in infertility research or treatment. The document also pays special attention to the important area of consent. Informed consent is an essential part of existing egg and sperm donation programmes. However, consent in relation to the donation of ovarian tissue from foetuses or from girls who die in childhood raise altogether different considerations.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend may recall that some years ago she and I discussed this matter in the context of the whole question of embryology. Does she not, while supporting the aim of my hon. Friend's new clause, agree that it would have been far better had we set out a

      161
      programme to ensure that research of this sort was not continued? Surely it would be better to impose greater restrictions.
      Mrs. Bottomley: On the contrary, I think that the work of the authority has demonstrated precisely why that legislation was so important. In several areas—for example, sex selection and some aspects of cloning—the authority has issued consultation documents and, as a result, has decided not to license centres taking forward work of that sort. I believe that it has been a model of socially enlightened research and legislation, and one that many countries in other parts of the world wish to follow.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), in her closing remarks, said that her new clause was supported by the Government. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall have a free vote and that the Government have supported the consultation exercise being carried out by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?
      Mrs. Bottomley: I should like to clarify that point My hon. Friend received assistance from my Department to ensure that her new clause would achieve the purpose that she intended. So far as the Government are concerned, however, there will be a free vote.
      I hope that I have set out clearly the matters that must be considered. Many people feel strongly about this issue, and the authority has a consultation exercise under way. Whatever the outcome of our debate tonight, the other issues to which I have referred need to be considered b:y the Government. We shall undertake this consideration when we have the benefit of the authority's full advice.
      We may recoil at the thought of a life being created in the circumstances that my hon Friend has described. As I said, some people may consider that the right course is to await the outcome of the HFEA's consultation exercise so that the issues can be considered in a wider context. All, I believe, will agree that there are serious ethical, legal and social issues involved. It is entirely appropriate that today's debate will be concluded with a free vote. The Government will abide by the will of Parliament.
      Mr. David Blunkett: I—like all other hon. Members, I imagine—share the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). The Secretary of State has just made an admirable case for awaiting completion of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's consultation process. We should not be debating such an important and sensitive issue in the context of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and at this time of night. It is now 20 minutes past midnight, and hon. Members are not in a position to express the genuine concerns of all sides.
      This is the worst way of legislating. It is the worst use of Parliament. It is reactive and emotive, and in some ways the debate is ill-informed. That is why, during a debate on the health service on 20 January, I asked the Secretary of State to consult her colleagues about the provision of adequate Government time to enable us to address the wider issues that had arisen over Christmas and the new year, only one of which we are addressing in the debate on this new clause.
      Subsequently, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and I met the Human Fertilisation
      162
      and Embryology Authority and discussed—as the hon. Member for Edgbaston must have done—its concern that a genuine consultation process which was extended to 15 July would be pre-empted on one issue on a Bill which has nothing to do with either health or embryology or with the issues which we debated at length in 1990 simply to satisfy an understandable but nevertheless isolated issue which we are addressing this evening.
      The 1990 Act—I spoke in that debate—was carefully considered by Parliament, and gave adequate powers to the embryology authority. It was explained to us that those powers would have been usable in dealing with the concerns of the hon. Member for Edgbaston. In any case, those powers would not need to be used for at least 10 years, and not in the immediate future. Scientific possibility would not make it possible for the fears and nightmares which people have expressed to come about for at least another decade.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: On that very point, is the hon. Gentleman aware that a distinguished gathering of physicists and astronomers announced that putting a satellite into orbit would be impossible until the turn of century—just one year before sputnik was put into orbit? The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one issue is being taken in isolation here, but many Government Members feel that the issue should be addressed at the first possible moment, which this Bill provides.
      Mr. Blunkett: I share the hon. Gentleman's wish that we should be able to address sensibly, carefully and non-emotively this very important issue, and those issues which were raised during Christmas and new year. Why have not the Secretary of State and her colleagues been prepared to make the time available at a rational and sensible time of day to debate the issues in that spirit?
      Given that consent—as the Secretary of State described—cannot be given in this area, there are no fears regarding the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred in terms of scientific possibility being overturned.
      The matter is very simple. Those on the Opposition Front Bench will not press for a vote on the issue tonight. We regret that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's efforts to provide a rational and sensible discussion and a debate on the issues in a way which enables us to come to much wider conclusions following its consultation period have been simply overridden.
      Even at this late stage, I ask the hon. Member for Edgbaston—with the knowledge that she has the House behind her and that the Secretary of State is giving support—to withdraw the new clause to allow the consultation period to be concluded and the embryology authority to come back with a range of recommendations following that consultation period, and to allow the House to debate the matter at a rational time of day in a rational fashion. That surely is the way in which Parliament should work—consequent on it having established the authority, consequent on asking it to deliberate on the issues and consequent on it agreeing to extend its consultation period.
      The Secretary of State made a clear and, I thought, sensible case for allowing that consultation period to conclude. We do not object to the intention of the new clause, but we sincerely worry about the process of Parliament which turns a Bill into a hybrid measure by

      163
      tagging on to it things which have not been debated in a way which we feel to be appropriate. We ask the hon. Member for Edgbaston to consider the issues in that light.
      Mr. Thurnham: It is unfortunate that the House is being asked at this late hour to consider this issue in this Bill. It is inappropriate that we should be considering it now. It is wrong, and it would be a mistake for the House to pass new clause 69.
      Many people oppose the new clause, such as PROGRESS—the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction—and the Royal College of Nursing, which has pointed out that it would be rash and that Parliament would lack credibility if it rushed a decision through now, pre-empting the consultation process that the Government set up. It seems totally wrong for the Government to allow a decision to be taken now when they have only just set up that process.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) recently introduced a ten-minute Bill and I am sorry that I was not able to be present. She advanced a number of arguments and I shall take a few minutes of the House's time to consider them. She said that she felt that it was repugnant to use foetal tissue in such a way, but surely it cannot be worse to use a miscarried foetus to create life than to incinerate it. That is the choice.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston went on to say that there was a shortage of donors, but that millions of people could donate. They do not do so. Professor Brian Lieberman in Manchester set up the National Egg and Embryo Donation Society because of the shortage that exists. Only a handful of donors are able to provide eggs for research and treatment, which is why it is so important for us to consider any other possibilities.
      My hon. Friend warned the House that women might be bribed to have late abortions. As I shall explain, there is no danger of that happening because, if it were possible to use foetal tissue, as many as 7 million eggs are available in one foetus, which would resolve all the present shortage problems. The full process is not understood, but it is known that, at the fifth month of pregnancy, about 7 million eggs are present. The number falls to 1 million at birth and 400,000 at puberty and only about 400 eggs go on to reach maturity, which is why there is the present shortage. It could be alleviated if new processes were discovered.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston went on to discuss a market in other organs, but that was considered by the Polkinghorne report, which sensibly advised that hospital ethical committees could consider the issues case by case and decide what was sensible and what should be done in the best interests of patients—for instance, by using foetal tissue to treat Parkinson's disease and so forth.
      My hon. Friend also said that it would be wrong for a child to be born if the genetic mother had died, but it is not uncommon for a child to be born when the father has died. There is also evidence to show that, if DNA tests were taken, they would prove that one fifth of the population do not have the father shown on the birth certificate.
      My hon. Friend also said that consent would not be given in the way in which it has been laid down by Parliament and I agree. That is a valid argument, which is why very little use would be made of the treatment if it
      164
      were available. She queried the legality of using foetuses, but if it were illegal the Government would not support a consultation process. Clearly, it is legal as the law stands.
      She also queried whether foetal eggs could be used for fertilisation. The Royal College of Nursing has said that it thought that it would take about 10 or 20 years, and Peter Brinsden of Bourn Hall thought that it might be five or ten years. Clearly, it is a long way away and there is no need for the House to rush into any hasty legislation tonight.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston finished introducing her ten-minute Bill by asking:
      "how can it be right that a matter of life and death … should be decided by a committee?"—[Official Report, 22 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 152.]
      The right place for such matters to be considered is case by case, by the ethics committees in each hospital.
      Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend will recall that I did my level best to help him to get the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 on the statute book. He says that there is time, but does he not accept that we ought to make it crystal clear that no research should be done in such a way, whether in five or 20 years? We should make it clear now that that is one step too far.
      Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said that her clause would not stop research. The House can come to a decision about what might happen in this country, but it cannot decide matters in other countries, and all that this would mean is that the United Kingdom would lose its current lead. Louise Brown was the first test tube baby in the world to be born because this country has the lead; it would be very wrong of the House to approve legislation which would mean that our lead passed to other countries and, in extreme cases, people might have to go abroad for treatment that is unobtainable in this country.
      For these reasons I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause and not put it before the House at this late hour. If she persists in putting it before the House, I urge hon. Members to oppose it.
      12.30 am
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I would like to take up a little of the House's time tonight in flying the flag for that excellent organisation the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It was established in 1990 to look into the regulation of all treatment and research centres involved in infertility treatment with donated eggs or sperm, storage of eggs, sperm or embryos and research on human embryos up to the limit of 14 days. The authority is doing an excellent job, and should be allowed to continue with the work that it has been asked to do.
      Over the years, a great deal of work has been done on in vitro fertilisation, and we have seen a great improvement in the techniques being used. In 1987, fewer than one in 10 IVF attempts led to a live birth; today, the figure is nearer one in seven. Over 10,000 children have been born through IVF in the United Kingdom. That is 10,000 children who are wanted and loved, and who are growing into healthy and happy individuals. The problem is that IVF has proved so popular that there is a great shortage of eggs relative to the demand, and the HFEA has issued a consultation paper with three possible sources of ovarian tissue to keep up with the demand. [Interruption.]

      165
      One of them is the possibility which has sparked such a chorus of indignation: to use foetal ovaries from abortions, stillbirths or miscarriages. [Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Too many private conversations are going on. Nobody is obliged to be in the Chamber. If hon. Members are here, I expect them to listen to the hon. Member who has the floor.
      Mrs. Campbell: I have had a great many letters on this, and many of the people who have written to me appear to believe, mistakenly, that it is a treatment which is available and which is being carried out now. We have heard already tonight that nothing could be further from the truth.
      It is true that foetal ovaries have been transplanted to restore the fertility of sterile mice, but this technique is not remotely possible in human beings at present. The research required to solve all the potential problems would take at least 10 years to produce a technique which was both effective and acceptable in human beings. So even if research started today, another 10 years would elapse before we could use such a technique. No research is currently going on in the United Kingdom on this issue.
      So I must ask: why the hurry? Why the rush to make new legislation now, immediately, about something which is at least 10 years away? Why not wait until the excellent HFEA has finished its public consultation in mid-July and published its report a month later? When we set up a body to consider the issues, why do we find it necessary to rush in and prevent it from completing its job?
      Like many other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, I very much hope that the conclusion of the HFEA will be to recommend a ban on the use of foetal eggs. The very idea causes me some revulsion, but I think that it is important that the subject is properly considered—not simply debated for one hour very late at night, with tired Members on both sides of the House, who are ill informed and perhaps have a great many other issues on their minds on that subject.
      I shall consider one further and final point. What is the effect of not allowing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to finish its job? I know that, if I were a member of that authority, I would be very upset if, after I had been asked to consult on what is obviously a very controversial issue, and as soon as the general public were being consulted on that issue, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) had jumped in and tried to pass premature legislation.
      I believe that the effect on that organisation will be that it will not in future wish to consult about anything that is remotely controversial. It will be forced to lie low, play safe and not test public opinion on those very important moral issues, as the HFEA was intended to do.
      This is one of the few occasions when, through another organisation, we are asking the general public their views about what is acceptable to them. Do we not trust them to arrive at the right conclusion? Why do we want to interfere with the natural course of public consultation and debate? This is the wrong time to debate the subject, and in the Lobby tonight I shall vote against the new clause.
      Mr. John Gunnell: When the Secretary of State has told us that about 3,000 people have responded to the consultation document, does my
      166
      hon. Friend consider that the House is showing contempt for those 3,000 people if it takes a decision before their views are heard and analysed?
      Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. We have to consider the effect on those members of the public who bothered to write down their opinions and send them to the HFEA. It means that the House is, of necessity, riding over those opinions that have been expressed, and not allowing proper consideration of those issues.
      Mr. Alton: Does the hon. Lady accept that the vast majority of those people who have written to the authority have registered their opposition to those repulsive procedures, and that therefore they will be delighted with the new clause that the hon. Lady has moved and would wish us to pass it tonight, and that there is therefore no need to delay on the grounds that she is advancing? Does she also consider it strange that the HFEA needed to consult on that issue at all?
      Mrs. Campbell: I do not find it strange that the HFEA found it necessary to consult. I think that there is a problem, and the HFEA has named the option as one of a number for consideration, debate and consultation. I think that the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is not valid, because it is important for us to know the result of the public consultation. In taking the step tonight, in trying to pre-empt the results of the public consultation process, we are prejudging the issue.
      I have already said that my sympathies are with those people who wish the use of foetal eggs to be banned, and I have no doubts about that, but I want the issue to be properly discussed, I want it to be properly considered by an authority that has the resources, the information and the expertise to consider it, and I do not want it to be decided very late at night in the House of Commons at this point, before that consultation period is finished.
      I reiterate that it will be at least 10 years before the treatment becomes even a remote possibility, so let us wait only a few more months to find out what public opinion and the HFEA advise us, instead of pushing headlong into a premature and hasty decision.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: With the indulgence of the House, this will be an extremely short contribution.
      If we debate this measure, and indeed consult until the cows come home—as they say in the farming community—we should still reach the conclusion that it can never be right for a child to be born to a mother who herself was never born. It cannot be right for a child never to know what that mother looked like; for a child never to know what that mother's disposition would have been; or, in the event of medical complications later, never to know what that mother's medical condition would have been had that mother been born.
      That is all we are discussing tonight. We do not need to wait for the completion of the consultation period; the broader issues can be debated and voted on at a later date. Tonight we are debating a simple narrow issue: should the House permit a child to be born to a mother who has never been born? The answer must be no. The vote must be yes in favour of the proposer, our hon. Friend the Member for

      167
      Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). It can never be right for a foetus to produce a child. I ask the House to support our hon. Friend on this side.
      Dame Jill Knight: I will speak for only one or two moments. I will not concern myself with answering the arguments which hon. Members opposite have put forward; they are easy to answer, but it would take time. If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) imagines that we in this House are not capable of discussing anything after 10 o'clock at night, she will have to learn better, because most hon. Members are well aware that we discuss and decide many things at this time of night.
      I make one most important point. It is important for us to pass this new clause and say, here and now, that those
      168
      who are spending time and a great deal of money on research in this field may as well stop right now and spend the money on far more important things to do with the well-being of women and children.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said many things which surprised and saddened me. But he ought to be ashamed—perhaps he will be ashamed in the morning—of saying that the House is only a committee. The House of Commons is a great deal more than a committee. If we think that we are merely members of a committee, we are not worthy of being here. I do not have the slightest intention of withdrawing the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
    New Clause 70

      EXTENSION OF SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967 TO THE ARMED FORCES AND MERCHANT NAVY (No. 2)
      '.—(1) Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (Homosexual acts in the Armed Forces) is repealed.
      (2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, subsection (5) (Homosexual acts in the Armed Forces) is repealed.
      (3) Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (Homosexual acts on merchant ships) is repealed.
      (4) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), subsection (7)(d) and the word "or" preceding it, and subsection (8), (which together make provision about homosexual acts on merchant ships) are repealed.
      (4) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 82—Homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland—
      '—(1) In the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the following are revoked—

      (a) in article 3(1) (homosexual acts in private), the words "and Article 5 (merchant seamen)"; and

      (b) article 5 (homosexual acts on merchant ships).

      (2) Article 3(4) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in the armed forces) is revoked.
      (3) This section, and the associated entry relating to the 1982 Order in Schedule 11, shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.
      Amendment No. 35, in clause 131, page 103, line 19, at end insert—
      'In Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), for "21" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "18".'.
      Amendment No. 36, in clause 142, page 110, line 32, after '125,' insert '131,'.
      Government amendment No. 184.
      Amendment No. 122, in page 111, line 1, leave out 'Section 44 extends' and insert
      'Sections 44 and (Homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) extend'.
      Amendment No. 123, in schedule 11, page 157, line 49, at end insert—

      'S.I. 1982/1536 (NJ. 19).

      The Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982

      In Article 3, in paragraph (1), the words "and Article 5 (merchant seamen)", and paragraph (4). Article 5.'.

      Government amendment No. 133.
      Mr. Maclennan: The new clause provides the Government with an opportunity to fulfil the undertaking that they gave in 1992 to decriminalise homosexuality in the armed forces and Merchant Navy.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am finding it extremely difficult to hear
      170
      what the hon. Gentleman is saying because of the noise. I know that you would want the House to be orderly so that we can hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. So that the House is clear about what is happening, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has now moved new clause 70 and has the Floor.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised private homosexual acts between consenting adults over the age of 21 in England and Wales, but did not extend to the armed forces or the Merchant Navy. Further Acts decriminalising homosexuality in Northern Ireland and Scotland repeated that omission.
      The Select Committee on the Armed Forces recommended in 1992 that the criminal law be the same for members of the armed forces and Merchant Navy as it is for civilians. It did not, however, recommend lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. In the debate to which I have referred, in June 1992, the then Minister of State said:
      "the Select Committee on the Armed Forces did recommend that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should no longer constitute an offence under service law. That recommendation has been considered very carefully by the service personnel authorities, and they and Ministers have concluded that the Select Committee's recommendation should be accepted … It is now the Government's view, following the advice of the Select Committee, that such criminal proceedings should no longer be brought. My Department has therefore accepted that the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act"—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Michael: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is immensely difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman, as it was the last time you expressed concern on the issue.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members beyond the Bar, who are not technically in the Chamber, carry on their conversations elsewhere?
      Mr. Maclennan: The former Minister of State said:
      "My Department has therefore accepted that the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 should not apply in future. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been asked to implement the repeal of this part of the Act as soon as the legislative programme allows … I should like to make it clear that this is a sensible measure of decriminalisation, whose purpose is to tidy up the differences between military and civilian law. It is not intended to alter the present disciplinary climate of service life."
      New clause 70 has been tabled to enable the Government to fulfil that undertaking. It does not seek to prevent the Army from disciplining individuals for conduct that may be a threat to discipline or good order relating to homosexual activity. Criminal prosecutions for gross misconduct of an indecent kind will still be possible under other armed forces legislation, as in civilian life. I commend the new clause to the House.
      The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): All four Ministers at the Ministry of Defence support new clauses 70 and 82. Their purpose is to align with civilian law the legality or otherwise of actions by members of the armed forces and the Merchant Navy. Under current law, those engaging in homosexual activity that is legal in civilian law could be prosecuted

      171
      under service law. Clearly, that would be unfair, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed the House in June 1992 that the Government had accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill of 1991 that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not be prosecuted under service law.
      Since then, we have not been prosecuting in such circumstances. It remains our policy, however, that homosexual activity is not compatible with the special conditions under which service personnel live and work. Service personnel found to be homosexual or who engage in homosexual activity will continue to be discharged from the services. It would clearly be anomalous for the situation in the Merchant Navy to be different from that in the armed forces. There is general consensus in the shipping industry that section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 should be repealed, and the decision to do so was announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), on 16 December 1993.
      The code of conduct for the Merchant Navy is being amended in consultation with the unions and employers. Now is an appropriate opportunity to enshrine in law our acceptance of the position and repeal the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. It is also appropriate to amend the relevant section in article 3(4) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 in relation to the law in Northern Ireland. I commend the new clauses to the House.
      Ms Kate Hoey: I wish to speak to amendment No. 35, standing in my name and those of a large number of other hon. Members. Although we cannot take a decision on it tonight, I hope that the House will support amendment No. 35, which will bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with the decision taken by the House a short time ago to reduce the age of consent for homosexuals to 18. At present, under the law in Northern Ireland, the age is still 21. In the Republic of Ireland the age of consent is 17. I am sure that the House would not want homosexual people in Northern Ireland to suffer inequality under the law.
      The amendment is a simple measure of equality that would bring the age of consent in Northern Ireland to 18 as in the rest of the United Kingdom. It would give young people, and people generally in Northern Ireland, the same rights as people in the rest of the UK. Will the Minister give his view on the matter? I hope that he will accept the amendment. If not, I hope that the House will vote on it tomorrow.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Hoey: Yes, I give way to one of the supporters of my amendment.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: If there is opposition to the amendment, I think that the House will want to vote on it. I hope that those hon. Members who feel as the hon. Lady and I do—that everyone in the UK should be treated in the same way—will try to ensure that there is an opportunity to vote on the matter on another day such as tomorrow.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that if existing law is changed as a result of these amendments, anyone dismissed from the service under the existing legislation will not be able to appeal to the European Court and receive large sums of public money?
      Mrs. Roche: I welcome the Minister's acceptance of new clause 82 in my name, but we continue to be disappointed that homosexual activity can still lead to dismissal. Anyone who saw the "Cutting Edge" television programme about able seaman Brett Bernell will know how disgraceful was his dismissal and treatment. In more enlightened times, and perhaps under a different Government, there may be a change of attitude.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 71

      EXTENSION OF DEFINITION OF RAPE TO COVER MALE RAPE, ETC.
      '.—(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 is amended as follows—

      (a) in section 1(1) (rape), for "rape a woman" there is substituted "commit rape'; and

      (b) in section 12 (buggery), after subsection (1) there is inserted—

      "(1A) This section does not apply where a man has anal intercourse with a woman or with another man who (in either case) at the time of the act does not consent to it.".
      (2) Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (meaning of "rape" etc.) is amended as follows—

      (a) in subsection (1)(a), after "consent to it" there is inserted "or has anal intercourse with a woman or with another man who (in either case) at the time of the act does not consent to it";

      (b) in subsection (1)(b), after "she", in both places, there is inserted "or he";

      (c) in subsection (2), for "a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse" there is substituted "a woman or a man was consenting to the act in question"; and

      (d) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

      "(2A) In the following provisions of this Act, references to a woman include references to a man."
      (3) This section, and the associated repeals in Schedule 11, shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.— [Mrs. Roche.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Roche: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment (a), before subsection (3), insert
      '(2A) In subsection (3) of section 2 of the 1976 Act (restrictions on evidence at trials for rape, etc.) after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or a man".
      (2B) In subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1976 Act (anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases) after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or a man".'.
      New clause 78—Marital rape—
      '.—(1) For section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Rape) there shall be substituted the following section—

      Rape.
      1.—(1) It is an offence for a man to commit rape.
      (2) A man commits rape if—

      (a) he has sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

      (b) at that time he knows she does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether she consents to it.

      (3) A man who induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband commits rape.
      (4) Subsection (2) above applies for the purpose of any enactment."
      (2) In sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Procuration of women to have unlawful sexual intercourse) the word "unlawful" shall be omitted.
      (3) Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.
      (4) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended in accordance with subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) below.
      (5) In section 4(1) (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of marital rape offence, to the modifications of this section made by section 4A of this Act,".
      (6) After section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—

      Anonymity of complainant and defendant in marital rape etc. cases.
      4A.—(1) Section 4 of this Act shall have effect in the case of a marital rape offence with the following modifications.
      (2) The prohibition in subsection (1) of the publication or other disclosure (except as authorised by a direction) of—

      (a) the woman's name or address or a picture of her; and

      (b) matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the woman;

      shall apply in relation to the person against whom the allegation or accusation of the rape offence is made ('the man') as it applies to the woman, but shall continue in force for the duration of the woman's life only.
      (3) Any direction in pursuance of that section may disapply the prohibition either in relation to the man and the woman or in relation to the man only (but not in relation to the woman only) and, where given in pursuance of an application, whether or not the application sought that form of direction.
      (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the defence conferred by subsection (5A) on proof of the written consent of the woman to the appearance of matter of the description in question shall only be available on proof of the written consent of the woman and the man; and the exception in subsection (5B) on proof of unreasonable interference with the woman's peace or comfort applies also on proof of unreasonable interference with the man's peace or comfort.
      (5) Where the man is convicted of the rape offence subsection (4) above does not apply as respects any time after the conviction."
      (7) In section 7(2) (Definition of rape offence, etc, for purposes f the Act), in that definition—

      (a) after the words "attempted rape", where they first occur, there shall be inserted the words "assault with intent to rape,"; and

      (b) for the words "or attempted rape" there shall be substituted the words ", attempted rape or assault with intent to rape".

      (8) In section 7(2), after the definition of "a rape offence" there shall be inserted the following—
      " 'a marital rape offence' means any of the following, namely, rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to rape and burglary with intent to rape where, at the time of the alleged offence, the victim and the person accused of the offence are married to each other;".
      (9) In consequence of the foregoing amendments—
      (a) in section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976—

      (i) for the words "the preceding section" (wherever they occur) there shall be substituted the words "section 4 of this Act"; and

      (ii) in subsection (5), for the words "of such matter as is mentioned in" there shall be substituted the words "such as to contravene";

      (b) in section 6(5) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the words from "section" to the end there shall be substituted the words "sections 4 and 4A of the Sexual
      174
      Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (Anonymity in rape cases of complainant and, in marital rape cases, of complainant and defendant)"; and
      (c) paragraph 66 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall cease to have effect.
      (10) In section 80(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Exceptional compellability of accused's spouse) after paragraph (a), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(aa) the offence charged is a sexual offence against the wife of the accused; or"
      (a) in consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1) above in subsection (3) of that section—

      (i) in subsection (3)(c), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "or of attempting to commit any offence falling within paragraph (aa) above.".

      (ii) in subsection (7), for the words "subsection (3)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3)(aa) and (b)"

      (11) Subject to subsection (12) below subsections (4) to (8) above shall not apply in relation to an allegation or accusation of an offence which is made before the commencement of this Act and subsection (10) above shall not apply in relation to any trial, or any proceedings before a magistrates' court as examining justices, which began before the commencement of this Act.
      (12) Subsection (7) above shall not, in its application to sections 1(2), 2 and 3 of the Act of 1976, apply in relation to any trial, or any proceedings before a magistrates' court, which began before the commencement of this Act and shall not, in its application to sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1976, apply in relation to an allegation or accusation of an offence which is made before the commencement of this Act.'.
      New clause 83—Aggravated sexual offences—
      '.—(1) A person who commits an offence under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offence Act 1985 or section 22(1) or 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 shall be guilty of an aggravated offence if the person against whom that offence is committed is under the age of 16 years.
      (2) A person who commits an aggravated offence under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable to double the penalty provided for such an offence if it had not been an aggravated offence.'.
      New clause 84—Living on the earnings of prostitution of a person—
      'In section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 for subsection (1) there is substituted the following subsection—
      "(1) It is an offence for a person knowingly to live wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution".'.
      New clause 85—Procuration of a person to become a prostitute abroad—
      For section 22(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 there is substituted the following section—
      "(1) It is an offence for a person—

      (a) to procure a person to become, in any part of the world, a common prostitute; or,

      (b) to procure a person to leave the United Kingdom, intending him or her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or,

      (c) to procure a person to leave his or her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom intending him or her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in any part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.".'.

      New clause 93—Meaning of rape—
      '.—(1) In section 1(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act")—

      (a) the word "unlawful" is omitted; and

      (b) the word "person" is substituted for the word "woman".

      (2) In section I(1)(b) of the 1976 Act—
      the words "that person" are substituted for the word "she" in both places where it occurs; and
      (3) The following subsection is inserted after section 1(1)—" Notwithstanding section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, for the purposes of this Act, 'sexual intercourse' shall mean vaginal or anal penetration to any degree by any part of the assailant's body, or any object, and shall include non-consensual oral sex.".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 43, 44 and amendments Nos. 49 to 51.
      Mrs. Roche: This new clause is about equality and treating victims of crime equally. The maximum penalty for raping a woman is life imprisonment. Given the appalling nature of that crime and the trauma that it causes women, no one would argue that that is wrong. Yet male rape is not recognised in law. It is called buggery without consent, and carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years' imprisonment. If we want to act properly for victims of crime, we should do something about that legislative discrepancy.
      Other countries, such as Canada and Ireland, have already amended their legislation. In Ireland, the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 extended the definition of rape to include male victims.
      In this country, the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended as long ago as 1984 that the penalty for buggery without consent should be increased to life imprisonment. New clause 71 would achieve the same end as the CLRC hoped to achieve—but by changing the definition of rape rather than increasing the penalty for buggery. After all, men who are victims of rape know that that is exactly what they are—rape victims, and the victims of an appalling crime.
      A change in the law would also reassure male rape victims that their plight is taken seriously. A breakdown of 62 men who were the victims of sexual abuse and who have attended the Wharfside clinic at St Mary's hospital in Paddington so far in 1994 showed that only seven of them —11 per cent.—had reported their assault to the police. A change in the law might encourage more men to report such crimes, so that the police can thoroughly investigate them.
      The new clause will enable the law to take account of the needs of victims of crime, and I shall listen carefully to the Minister's remarks. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Maclean: In law, sexual assault—by whatever name it is called—is abhorrent. The fact that the word "rape" is reserved for a particular act should not belittle the suffering of the victims of other sexual offences, whether male or female.
      New clauses 71 and 93 would raise the maximum penalty for certain sexual offences to life imprisonment. Because the penalty for indecent assault on a woman was increased from two to 10 years in 1985 and because we have now extended the power of the Attorney-General to refer unduly lenient sentences on indecent assault, I do not believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there will be any difficulty in ensuring that offenders are properly punished. The same goes for non-consensual buggery of a man.
      In short, the subject of new clauses 71 and 93 is too big and sensitive to embark on during the Report stage of a Bill which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out during the debate on the age of consent, is not a sexual offences Bill, but a criminal justice Bill.
      1 am
      I accept that there is an anomaly in the maximum sentences that are available. If there were to be a future sexual offences Bill, where these and other matters could be carefully considered—there would be knock-on
      176
      consequences if we were to do what the hon. Lady suggested, for example, on the problem of attempted buggery—the Government would be sympathetic in looking to iron out those anomalies and may increase the penalties.
      I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said, but this Bill is not the vehicle in which to attempt to change such a large subject. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause tonight.
      Mr. Gerrard: New clause 78, which is grouped with new clause 71, stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and myself and deals with a simple issue. The purpose of the new clause is to bring into the law the offence of marital rape. It might be thought that that is not necessary in view of the ruling of October 1991 in another place that sex without a woman's consent is rape irrespective of the relationship between the attacker and the woman. I point out that, in January 1992, the Law Commission, as a main recommendation, said that legislation should confirm the law and that the husband who raped his wife could be prosecuted just like anyone else. Although it could be argued that the law is now clear as a result of the 1991 judgment, the Law Commission clearly believed that a change was needed to remove any element that could suggest a marital exemption.
      The Government have stated a commitment to tackling the issue. I shall quote briefly from a letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton on precisely this issue. It reads:
      "We welcomed the … ruling in 1991 on rape in marriage. It is right that a woman should not be denied the protection of the criminal law simply because she is married to the assailant. The Government has pledged to enshrine the rape in marriage recommendation in statute when a convenient opportunity arises".
      I believe that this is a convenient opportunity. I hope that the Minister will not repeat the argument that he has just used in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). The Bill covers a huge range of topics. If the Government wish to make changes in the law in that respect, it is not satisfactory to say that we must wait for another Bill. The Bill is here now. It is wide enough already. These changes, which the Government said that they accept, could be included. I hope that the Minister will think again and, at the very least, say that if he cannot agree to the new clauses tonight, he will consider what can be done when the Bill goes to another place.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: I am disappointed at the response of my hon. Friend the Minister on new clause 71. It deals with an anomaly and an injustice which enable an odious crime to persist all too readily and which means that, if offenders are caught and found guilty, they are punished too lightly.
      As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, there is currently no such offence as male rape, or the rape of males. The charge in such cases is buggery without consent or indecent assault. Buggery without consent carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years compared with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the rape of a woman.
      Why is this important? Why is new clause 71 needed? It is needed because the present situation is plainly inequitable. By attaching a smaller maximum penalty to buggery without consent, we imply that, even if we do not condone it, we take a more indulgent view of it. All the

      177
      evidence shows that male victims of rape experience a trauma that should be understood as comparable to that suffered by female victims. In both cases, the suffering can be expected to be terrible and long lasting. That is certainly what the Royal College of Nursing tells us and what any of us can readily imagine.
      Writing in the British Medical Journal of 15 December 1990, Dr. Michael King said:
      "The rape trauma syndrome, in which phobic anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and behavioural changes. follow from am assault, occurs in both men and women".
      Because male rape is not recognised as a crime, it is often not reported, or, if it is, is reported only a long time after the event. That means that the victim does not receive support and care. The Kafkaesque effect of the offence not being recognised is that the victim, as one victim put it, feels isolated, unrecognised by society and without a context in which to understand his experience.
      Suzanne Adler's research shows that the reasons for not reporting male rape are similar to those for not reporting female rape. They include shock, embarrassment, fear, blame and a high degree of stigma. The establishment of a crime of male rape, as proposed in new clause 71, would make it more likely that the needs of male victims of sexual assault would be constructively considered through the provision of counselling and other support.
      In today's climate of greater openness and willingness to discuss matters such as rape and child abuse, the dimensions of the problem of male rape, while remaining far from clear, are becoming more apparent. Reports to the police of crimes of buggery without consent and indecent assault rose sharply between 1984 and 1989. Offences of buggery are recorded as increasing by 90 per cent. in that period and offences of indecent assault by 24 per cent. Dr. Gillian Mezey of St. George's hospital in London believes, however, that the figures are
      "the tip of an iceberg".
      By 1992, the admirable charity Survivors, to which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred, was receiving 800 calls a year during its twice-weekly two-hour helpline.
      Let us be clear about the fact that male rape is not, as public prejudice may suppose, typically a feature of omosexual activity. First, Home Office figures show that 85 per cent. of victims of indecent assault were under 15 years of age. Secondly, research published in 1990 in the British Journal of General Practice found that in 72 per cent. of the cases studied the assailant was perceived as having a heterosexual orientation. As in 72 per cent. of cases the assailant was also personally known to the victim, there is no reason not to accept that the estimate is fairly accurate.
      The point is that male and female rape is not primarily about sex but about power and its abuse. Rape is violence in which sex is the weapon. Mr. Ernest Woollett of Survivors, who was cited by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, reports that of those calling the helpline in 1993—the hon. Lady dealt with the 1994 statistics—44 per cent. had been under 10 at the time of the first assault and a further 22 per cent. were aged 11 to 15. Thirty per cent. of the alleged abusers were members of the victim's family and 13 per cent. of abusers were women. Where the information was obtained, in 45 per cent. of cases the sexual orientation of the victim was heterosexual and in 47 per cent. gay.
      178
      We are talking about an evil and an injustice on which we should act. We would not be alone in doing so: in Germany, the Netherlands and Canada, as well as in the majority of the states in the United States of America, rape is a non gender-specific offence. Expert legal opinion in Britain favours reform in this sphere, as the hon. Member for Homsey and Wood Green said. In 1984—
      Mr. Pike: Do not the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has just given show that it would be totally wrong for the Minister to say that we should wait for a sexual offences Bill to come before the House before we take action to protect the type of people that the new clause seeks to protect?
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman makes that point because it is very much the one to which I was coming. First, I wanted to stress that expert legal opinion favours reform in the area. In 1984, the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended increasing the penalty for buggery without consent. In 1992, in Doncaster Crown court, Mr. Justice Crabtree said:
      "When it comes to punishment I do not see that it makes any difference whether it was a man or a woman who has been violated and degraded."
      It will not do for us simply to wait for some putative sexual offences Bill which may receive parliamentary time at some uncertain and possibly distant date. We are dealing with a crime and with suffering of which there is evidence that the incidence is mounting. The new clause provides a vehicle which would enable us to act to address the problem. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister has felt unable to offer any hope that in the later stages of the passage of the Bill the Government will look again constructively at the problem, but I hope that he may reconsider the position at this inconvenient hour. I hope that, after all, the Government will be prepared to bring forward a new clause of their own in another place to address an urgent and important evil.
      Ms Mildred Gordon: The Minister has said that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is not the place to accept new clauses on sexual offences. On the contrary, I believe that it is a good opportunity to amend the law. New clause 93 concerns the definition of rape. Until now, legislation has excluded many horrific assaults which are technically not rape, but which are experienced as rape by the victims. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 defines in statute the offence of rape as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who did not consent.
      The first point of new clause 93 is about rape in marriage, where legislation is long overdue. Secondly, it would extend the definition of rape to cover rape attacks on men and boys and, thirdly, it includes as rape non-consensual buggery and some of the offences which are now known as indecent assault which carry a lesser penalty.
      The effect of the word "unlawful" in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act was to make husbands immune from the charge of raping their wives. The implication of it was that some rape, such as that within marriage, was lawful and many husbands took that right. Even those who did not take that right knew that they had it.

      179
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, in March 1991, after years of protest by women and women's organisations, the Appeal Court declared:
      "a rapist remains a rapist subject to the criminal law irrespective of any relationship"
      In 1991, the Law Lords said:
      "in modern times the supposed marital exception in rape forms no part of the law of England."
      That decision is being appealed against in the European Court and therefore it is vital that Parliament, which has never taken a stand in supporting the right of wives to say no to their husbands, takes a stand now.
      Parliament has done nothing, despite the fact that a Women Against Rape survey showed that rape in marriage is the most common rape of all and that one in seven married women have been raped by their husbands. In considering what the Law Lords have done, the Law Commission has said that rape in marriage should be made a crime on exactly the same basis as any other rape and that that should be achieved by deleting from the 1976 Act the word "unlawful". By adopting new clause 93, I believe that Parliament should delete that word today.
      On the basis of my case work, I feel strongly that Parliament should ensure that immigrant wives are no longer forced to submit to rape as a condition of their right to stay in Britain. I have known of several women who have fled brutal rapist husbands and then been faced with deportation orders because they were no longer living with the rapist. That must be put right. Women should be given legal help to fight their cases and financial help to enable them to escape from rapist husbands.
      As it is so late in the day I shall try to be as brief as possible. But I must say that it is absurd that in 1994 British law still does not recognise the rape of men and boys. It is clear that the distinction between buggery that is really consensual anal sex and buggery that is really rape must be clarified in law. That legal distinction is long overdue, both for women and for men. Consensual sex of whatever nature is not the business of the law, but it is the law's job to protect women, men and children from anal rape.
      1.15 am
      Men and boys, like women and girls, are raped by strangers, by members of their families, by their partners in gay relationships, by casual acquaintances or dates, and, especially when they are young, by men in positions of power and authority over them. Male rape is especially common in prison. It is time that the law addressed that problem, which could easily be done by changing the word in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act from "she" to "person".
      My last argument is that the law must cover other forms of rape. The present definition of rape is confined to what is commonly known as "sexual intercourse". That definition artificially excludes many assaults that women experience and suffer as rape, such as forced oral or anal intercourse. Unfortunately, many children are sexually abused by means of forced oral intercourse.
      180
      Also excluded is the use of objects such as bottles, broom handles, knives and men's hands. There was a famous case involving a Queen's guardsman, Thomas Holdsworth, who was freed by the court on the grounds that a gaol sentence would ruin his Army career. In legal terms he had not raped the woman involved, although he had used his fist, full of rings, which tore her internally.
      The distinction made by the law and by many men between penile penetration and other sexual assault has nothing to do with the trauma that women suffer, or with women's perceptions. As the law stands, extremely violent and serious assaults are categorised only as indecent assault, and thus receive a far lesser penalty. The maximum sentence for indecent assault is 10 years, whereas for rape the maximum is life. The new criminal compensation scheme gives compensation of £3,000 for indecent assault, but gives £7,500 for rape.
      The present legal definition of the offence of rape is outdated and indefensible and creates gross miscarriages of justice. There can be no excuse for Parliament's perpetuating that situation for one more day.
      Mrs. Roche: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I welcome the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon). I am pleased that the new clause has had all-party support and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on his excellent speech highlighting rape trauma syndrome.
      Although I welcome the Minister's expression of the Government's sympathy over the discrepancy, I am disappointed that in such a wide-ranging Bill time could not have been found to deal with that area of the law. I hope that as the Bill makes progress, perhaps in another place, it may be possible to give the issue further consideration and to deal with it. But in view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Bill to be further considered this day.

  PETITION

    School Transport
    1.19 am
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: I present a petition from 400 residents and parents of students at Bradfield school and other schools in the area about dangerous overcrowding on school transport.
    The petition reads:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House in the interests of safety enact a change in the law regarding the transportation of school children by bus or coach so that school children may no longer be carried three to a seat. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Iraq and Libya (Sanctions)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—0[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  1.20 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the last occasion that I raised the issue of sanctions against Iraq and Libya, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was present. I am sure that it is the wish of hon. Members who are here to extend deepest sympathy to his wife Ann and a feeling of considerable pain and loss on the death of Bob Cryer.
  As I told the Prime Minister when, most courteously, he saw me in his room in the House of Commons on Thursday 3 March; as I told the Foreign Secretary when he most courteously saw me in his room in the House on the first parliamentary day after I returned from Baghdad in May 1993; and as I twice explained to Sir Michael Burton when, most courteously, he saw me first in June 1993 and again with Riad El Taher last month, I was indelibly appalled to see the lines of infants in the children's hospital in Baghdad and at the Um Kasr hospital on the Kuwait border, some of whom were expiring in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and myself.
  This summer, unless something is done, the human tragedy is likely to be compounded. That something is the supply of the pharmaceuticals on the list that I handed to the Prime Minister, and the supply of water filters and water pump equipment to process the disease-ridden waters of the Tigris river, supplying the staff of life to a city of 4 million people.
  Where there were three pumps in happier times, despite Iraqi technical ingenuity, there is now probably one. If a few pumps seize up in sweltering May, June, July and August, water-borne disease will be rife.
  In so far as policy is dictated by the alleged persecution of the Shia and the so-called marsh Arabs, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are plain wrong.
  There are more Shia than Sunni in the city of Baghdad. I saw the breathtaking shrine at Kerbala being skilfully rebuilt by specific order of Saddam Hussein, who went there soon after the western bombing.
  The supposed evidence of burning marsh Arab villages that was shown to me in the India room of the Foreign Office by Ministry of Defence officials on 23 March., as a result of the courteous initiative by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), seems to be worthless. Those who briefed me simply did not know that reed huts are regularly burnt for reasons of sanitation, and have been burnt at intervals for 5,000 years for the same reasons of hygiene.
  I recommend the article in Middle East International entitled "Letter from Qurna" by Tim Llewellyn, the veteran middle east correspondent of the BBC, who accompanied me on my visit to Iraq in 1993. Knowing that this debate would start late at night, I gave a copy to the Foreign Office first thing in the morning, which I hope the Minister received from his office. I quote that article:
  "Strangely, all seems calm, everyone seems happy. It is true the cheerleaders are from the Ba'th party, but that musky aura of death and fear is not in the air. Dare I say it, these Madan actually like being modernised. A burgeoning drainage and irrigation scheme has brought a man-made river sweeping south east, canals shooting off from it, other similar projects under way or planned. The Marsh Arabs can still live near the water, but out of it now,
  182
  with electricity, clinics, financial help, government food rations and clean water to drink, the land washed clear of salt and reclaimed for wheat, barley and rice.
  They keep their reeds, their hunting, their water buffalo and way of life, and—yes—it has to be said, they are more manageably arranged for Saddam's supervision. Progress disciplines everyone.
  This phenomenal water endeavour is not new. The Marshes' drainage was planned in the 1950s, started in the 1970s and written about with tentative approval by Gavin Young, Thesiger's protege, in 1976. It is quite ludicrous to suppose that such a complex project has been designed simply to exterminate an ancient people."
  It is against this background that I ask the Government yet again what on earth they intend to do, in this sweltering summer, about a terrible human situation and implore them to think again about whether sanctions should not be lifted.
  Turning to Libyan sanctions, I am driven to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government simply do not want either to find or to stumble on the truth of the Lockerbie crime. The truth, if it were established, would be altogether too awkward, too inconvenient, too embarrassing to Britain and the United States. I have been ever more curious about Lockerbie since those last days of December 1988, when a constituent friend and police officer told me that it was extraordinary how Americans, swarming round the wreckage, were interfering with evidence within hours of the crash.
  Extraordinary, too, was the fact that the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Sir P. Channon), whom I have known in the House since he was the late Rab Butler's Parliamentary Private Secretary, appeared so confident that he knew what had been done, and who had done it, that he was prepared to say as much about the case to selected journalists in January 1989.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is in the Chamber. I should like to put on record my belief that his efforts in relation to Libya have been totally sincere, were undertaken in good faith and would have represented the best chance of resolving the problem had he received from a number of authorities in Britain the backing that he deserved. I applaud his efforts.
  Extraordinary, too, is the fact that, in more than 800 pages of memoirs, Lady Thatcher should. not so much as mention Lockerbie once. But, of course, the fact is that two American Presidents asked Downing street to keep a low profile on Lockerbie. Lady Thatcher does refer to the 1986 bombing of Libya, and she seeks to justify it on the grounds that Libya could no longer back terrorists:
  "The 'much-vaunted' Libyan Counter-Attack did not, and could not, take place."
  She, of all people in the western world, must have known what intelligence was saying about Lockerbie, and her memoirs cannot be squared with information that blames Libya.
  Like the Maltese Government, the Maltese police, Air Malta, the Luqa airport authorities and, indeed, Dr. John Buon Tempo, the former Maltese ambassador to the Arab states, whose mediation efforts are, I hope, being taken seriously by the Foreign Office, I do not believe that a bomb was posted—yes, posted—in Malta to go through the Rhein-Main airport and Heathrow without detection. Nor—bluntly—do I, as the longest-serving Scottish Member of Parliament, with a history of respect for the office of Lord Advocate, believe that the Crown Office has the evidence that it claims to have and pleads that, for legal reasons, it cannot produce.

  183
  It was partly that raisons d'etat dictated that with a Gulf war situation looming, it was necessary not to place blame on Syria or Iran and that Libya was a convenient, smaller scapegoat. It was partly to do with some vociferous American relatives of the victims, and their lawyers, led by Lee Kreindler, in order to get their money, and to prove negligence by Pan Am and fix responsibility on Pan Am insurers—a case that depends on the bomb being posted in Malta, as does Vincent Cannistraro's venomous attack on Lestor Coleman and Don Goddard, whom I do not regard as con men and who ought to be taken seriously and ought to be seen by the Scottish police. It was, above all, because of the sheer embarrassment factor for George Bush that the United States Government warned its officials and cancelled places on Pan Am flight 103, while allowing kids, like Flora Swire and the students of Rochester New York, to travel.
  If the Minister is angry with me for saying this, he might explain why Mr. Colin McEarchan QC for the Board of Trade at the fatal accident inquiry referred to the existence of public interest immunity certificates in relation to Lockerbie. Though the Minister has no ministerial responsibility, may I be forgiven for curiosity as to why the Department of Defence in Washington took the highly unusual step of claiming state privilege exempting certain documents from perusal by the lawyers of Pan Am insurers.
  Just what negotiations have taken place between the State Department and the Foreign Office? Bluntly, I believe that there has been a major conspiracy in Washington and London to obscure the course of justice. I beg the Minister at least to support the suggestion being put by distinguished Scottish lawyers to the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Boutros Galli, that a UN tribunal be convened to try the Libyan suspects.
  Let me say to the Lord Advocate who, I understand, is on a jurisdictional Scottish legal high horse, that if there were a trial at The Hague of the suspects, the Libyan Government have agreed that it would presided over by Scottish judges, held according to Scottish law and adopting Scottish court proceedings. What the Libyan suspects must do must be up to them and their legal advisers, because a distinction must be made between the suspects and the Libyan Government.
  Is the Foreign Office at all attracted—as I am—by the suggestion of Lord Macauley that the Lockerbie incident, which involved 16 nationalities, should be regarded as a crime against the international community, and that serious attempts ought to made at an international level to find an international forum acceptable to a multiplicity of countries?
  Sooner rather than later, sanctions against the Libyan people must be lifted. I may have gabbled this, but there is a very great deal more which could be said. I await the Foreign Office reply with interest in the knowledge that it had 16 hours—possibly not enough time—to consider these extremely serious issues.
  1.31 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman knows well that I disagree with a great deal of what he has said,
  184
  but he has always shown a deep and continuing interest in the issues and I congratulate him on the fact that he has found yet another opportunity in which to raise them.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman also for the fact that he sent my office a copy of his speech, and that has given me the opportunity to reflect on what he proposed to say. It would be helpful if I began by reminding the House of the circumstances in which sanctions were first imposed on Iraq.
  When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the international community had no choice but to take resolute action. The action that was first taken comprised United Nations Security Council resolution 661, which imposed comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq, and those were imposed on 6 August 1990.
  At that time, there was an exception to those sanctions for strictly medical products. Subsequently, UNSC resolution 687 was passed on 3 April 1991 which laid down requirements that Iraq had to meet in full before sanctions could be lifted. Those requirements have not been met.
  Just as it was Saddam Hussein who first caused sanctions to be imposed on Iraq, it is Saddam who is responsible for their remaining in place. However, from the very beginning the UN Security Council has been conscious of the effect of the sanctions on the ordinary people of Iraq. Just as many medicines were also exempt when resolution 687 was passed, the Security Council permitted shipments of foodstuffs and humanitarian goods.
  The present position is that food and medicines are still exempt from sanctions, and humanitarian goods are permitted subject to approval by the UN sanctions committee. The role of that committee is to monitor the implementation of the embargo and to act as a point of reference in interpreting humanitarian and essential needs. The sanctions committee considers all applications to ship humanitarian goods to Iraq on a case-by-case basis. Our view is that basic human requirements such as clothing, toiletries, clean water, sanitation, shelter and agriculture fall within that definition and should be met.
  We do our best to ensure that humanitarian goods are available to people who need them, but, at the same time, we have to ensure, first, that there is a genuine need and, secondly, that the goods are not diverted or exploited by the regime. For that reason, export licence applications should be supported by a United Nations agency report and each case is judged on its merits.
  I accept that the process is sometimes slow, owing to the volume of applications received; however, we think that it is necessary to maintain a careful scrutiny of the applications.
  It has not been our intention to punish innocent Iraqi civilians for Saddam's crimes. We take the view that the responsibility for the hardship and suffering of the Iraqi people lies not with the international community but with Saddam Hussein.
  One of the problems is that we are unable to make our own assessments of humanitarian needs, as we are repeatedly denied access to many parts of Iraq. However, we receive reports from various sources about the humanitarian situation. We do not underestimate the effect that sanctions are having on the ordinary people of Iraq and, for that reason, the British Government alone have given about £66 million in aid since April 1991.
  I regret to say that the regime in Iraq does not make life easy for the agencies involved there. In some cases, they

  185
  are simply denied access. In others, they are unable to operate on the terms offered to them by the Iraqis. For example, the World Health Organisation spent months wrangling with the Iraqi authorities over the distribution of essential medical supplies. Aid workers in northern Iraq are under constant threat. There are reports that the Government in Baghdad have offered a reward of $10,000 for the assassination of foreigners on Iraqi soil.
  Since 12 March, there have been six security incidents, including two deaths in northern Iraq. Some of the attacks have been deliberately aimed at United Nations guards. So Saddam's regime, which caused the sanctions to be imposed in the first place, has consistently frustrated the international community's attempts to alleviate the suffering of the ordinary people of Iraq.
  It is not surprising that Saddam does nothing to alleviate the suffering of his people. In October last year, the Iraqi Government decided not to continue negotiations on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, which were devised to bring relief to Iraqi civilians. Under those provisions, Iraq would have been able to sell up to $1.6 billion worth of oil during a period of six months. The proceeds would have gone into a United Nations escrow account. Some would have been set aside to cover compensation claims arising from the invasion of Kuwait. The rest—an estimated $933.7 million—would have been used for UN operations in Iraq, especially for the provision of food medicines and humanitarian supplies.
  Saddam has also been engaged for many years in a sustained campaign of oppression against his own people. In 1991, the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq was so serious that the Security Council adopted resolution 688, which demanded an end to the brutal repression of the civilian population throughout Iraq and insisted that it allow access by humanitarian organisations to all those in need.
  In his interim report of 18 November 1993, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Mr. Van Der Stoel, confirmed that the Iraqi Government were continuing their policy of repression. The internal blockade against the Kurds was still in place and the electricity supply was still turned off. The arbitrary killing of civilians had become part of daily life. Iraq denies the findings of Mr. Van Der Stoel, but has refused repeatedly to allow human rights monitors to be stationed in Iraq. If Iraq has nothing to hide, it should allow access to impartial observers.
  The Shia in the southern marshes have also become a target of vicious oppression. The southern no-fly zone has a deterrent effect, but it cannot solve all the problems. The marsh lands have been drained in some places and flooded in others, causing an ecological imbalance that deprives the marsh Arabs of their homes and agricultural lands.
  Recent imagery—I know that the hon. Gentleman has seen some of the film—from aircraft deployed to monitor Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolution 688 shows that the rivers have dried up and the waters have been diverted away from the marshes. We also have evidence to suggest that Iraqi ground troops are systematically burning settlements. We do not believe that those things are the result of some agricultural project; nor do we regard them as having some innocent explanation. Saddam's track record makes it clear that he is engaged in a systematic campaign against the Shia in the marshes.
  Our policy is clear. We are determined that Iraq should fulfil all its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions. We will continue to do what we can to help the
  186
  Kurds, the Shia and the others whom Saddam continues to repress. We will continue to do what we can to help the ordinary people of Iraq. But the maintenance of sanctions is in Saddam's hands, not ours, and I hope that when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) next has occasion to travel to Baghdad he will make that position quite plain to those whom he meets. That is perhaps the greatest service that he can render to the people of Iraq.
  I turn now, if I may, to the question of Libya. The Security Council imposed sanctions against Libya following that country's refusal to accede to the demands of the international community contained in UNSC resolution 731 which was adopted unanimously in January 1992. It called on the Libyan Government to provide a full and effective response to the requests by the United Kingdom, United States and French Governments to co-operate fully in establishing responsibility for the terrorist attacks against Pan Am flight 103 and UTA flight 772.
  Our position, together with that of the French and United States Governments, has been that the Libyan Government must surrender the two Libyan officials accused of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing for trial in Scotland or the United States, satisfy the French judicial authorities over the bombing of UTA 772, pay appropriate compensation and demonstrate by concrete actions their renunciation of terrorism.
  When the Libyan Government failed to respond satisfactorily to these demands, the Security Council adopted a mandatory resolution, 748, requiring the demands to be met and introducing, in April 1992, an arms embargo, a ban on air links and on certain aviation-related trade, and a reduction in Libyan diplomatic representation. Continuing Libyan refusal to comply with UNSC resolutions 731 and 748 led to the adoption on 11 November 1993 of resolution 883 which introduced, from 1 December 1993, further sanctions, including a ban on exports of certain oil-related equipment, tightening of the aviation embargo and a freeze on Libyan assets. Libya is allowed free access to the proceeds of sales of oil and agricultural products, provided the proceeds are placed in separate accounts.
  The intention behind the sanctions is not to punish the Libyan people but to increase the pressure on the Libyan regime to comply with the earlier resolutions and, in particular, to obtain justice for the victims of the Lockerbie and UTA atrocities. To this end, the new resolution adopts a carefully balanced approach. Thus, in addition to the stick of further sanctions, there is also a carrot: if the Secretary-General reports to the Security Council that the Libyan Government have ensured the appearance of those charged with the Lockerbie bombing before the appropriate US or Scottish court and have satisfied the French judicial authorities with respect to the bombing of UTA 772, the Security Council will review the sanctions with a view to suspending them immediately.
  We see the suspension of sanctions as a preliminary to their being lifted immediately Libya has complied fully with UNSC resolutions 731 and 748. This new element, which was not present in resolution 748, is designed to make it clear that sanctions are not intended to punish but to bring Libya to compliance, and no more than that. Responsibility for the continuance of sanctions therefore rests squarely with the Libyan regime. The Government have repeatedly stressed that they have no interest in maintaining sanctions for their own sake.
  Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for being here so late at night, but I want to press him on two aspects of the matter. First, what is the objection to some kind of trial taking place under Scottish court rules and Scottish court procedures before Scottish judges at The Hague? This, as I understand it, is an offer from the Libyan Government in so far as they can say what will happen, because I am told by the legal advisers that one cannot equate the Libyan Government with the two suspects.
  I ask the Minister this. Is it because, as I put it in my opening speech, it is the Lord Advocate rather on a Scottish legal high horse, of pure jurisdictional law—incidentally, he may be right in that and I am not challenging his integrity as a lawyer—but taking a very narrow, legal position, or is it the will of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Government that there should not be any type of change in the jurisdiction?
  Secondly, on Iraq, is it understood how a whole generation will grow up simply hating us if these sanctions
  188
  go on? People do not ask whose fault it was; they ask who is imposing the sanctions here and now. As one with a deep interest in the Arab world, I am dismayed that this should go on and on, in a situation where a generation will grow up, rightly or wrongly, simply hating the west. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) wants to interrupt me or interrupt the Minister, but I very much welcome his presence, exactly because he has taken such an interest in Libya.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission?
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of the Minister as well?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o'clock

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to publish the first annual report of the magistrates courts service inspectorate.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have done so today.

  Matrimonial Cases
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 608, concerning matrimonial cases, if he will list the measures he has taken to prevent any future arrangements being established similar to those mentioned in his answer.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following measures have been taken:New written instructions have been issued, requiring that:
  all plans or proposals of this sort be referred to a senior official before any action is taken;
  any item intended for publication in the departmental journal 'Court Business'—through which instructions to courts are promulgated—be approved by a senior official.
  New arrangements have also been introduced requring that the final draft of "Court Business" be submitted to a senior official for approval, before publication.

  Care Centres
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the national review of the designation of care centres to be completed; why the national review has been delayed; what representations he has received to designate the Bradford combined court centre as a case centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The background work and consultation on the review of care centres is expected to be completed this month. A report to Ministers will follow thereafter. The commencement date of the review was put back because the level of work taken at the care centres under the Children Act 1989 has only recently stabilised. Representations have been received at the local circuit office or by my Department to designate Bradford combined court centre as a care centre from the local authority, local legal practitioners, the local panel of guardians ad litem and some local Members of Parliament.

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost to his Department of processing a small claim which receives a preliminary hearing and final hearing in the small claims court.
  2
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what expenditure his Department has allocated in its 1994–95 budget for the provision of information relating to personal injury claims for the small claims court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper on 29 October 1993, setting out a proposed new procedure which would bring small personal injury claims into the small claims court. This would be likely to involve the provision of both new standard forms and leaflets providing information to litigants. The Lord Chancellor is currently evaluating the large number of responses received to the consultation. The precise costs of providing information to litigants cannot be assessed until the details of the procedure have been finalised.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, (b) payments by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and (c) those crimes of robbery with violence, rape and others which gave rise to compensation payments in 1992–93 as a percentage of the figures for 1987–88.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1987–88 there were 43,054 applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the amount of compensation paid totalled £52.043 million. The corresponding figures for 1992–93 were 65,977 applications and £152.218 million, increases of 53 per cent. and 192 per cent. respectively.

  The board does not collate information about compensation payments in respect of crimes of robbery with violence, rape or other categories.

  Racial Hatred
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the number of prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred under section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936 and sections 17 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986, and the number of convictions in each year since 1979; and if he will list the penalties for those convicted in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 17 March 1994, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the laboratories licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to use non-purpose-bred greyhounds in research between 1979 to 1992;

  (2) if he will list the number of project licences issued from 1979 to 1992 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which are still valid to use non-purpose-bred greyhounds in research.
  3
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To list the laboratories would be in breach of the requirement of section 24(1) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which provides for the protection of confidential information.

  No project licences were issued prior to the implementation of the 1986 Act on 1 January 1987. Of those issued since that date, only one is still valid for the use of non-purpose-bred greyhounds in research.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of scientific procedures performed on non-purpose-bred cats and dogs in 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information collected from project licence holders and published annually in the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain" does not distinguish between purpose-bred and non-purpose-bred cats and dogs. In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, 3,692 regulated procedures were performed upon cats and 9,085 upon dogs.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 843, if he will give the reason why an appropriate financial remedy is to be taken under the terms of the contract for Blakenhurst prison in connection with the incident on 24 February.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 12 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Blakenhurst prison.
  It is intended that an appropriate financial remedy under the terms of the contract be taken for the month of February as, in the light of the incident on 24 February, the Prison Service does not consider that UKDS fully delivered the required service during that month.
  In particular, during the incident, some parts of the prison were not fully in control, with consequent effects on regime delivery; and public relations and contingency arrangements were not satisfactory. Following the incident, the population was reduced to enable essential repairs to be carried out.

  Hunger Strikes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now publish details of the status of people held in detention centres under immigration law who are engaged in hunger strikes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 11 April, 20 people detained under Immigration Act powers were refusing meals. Eight were detained in Immigration Service detention and 12 in Prison Service accommodation, including Haslar. Of these 20, 16 were illegal entrants, and four were passengers subject to removal following refusal of leave to enter. Seventeen of the 20 had applied for asylum at some stage and their position was as follows:
  4

  Number

  Asylum application under consideration

  5

  Appeals outstanding against refusal of asylum

  10

  Awaiting travel documents for removal

  2

  Of the remaining three non-asylum cases, two were subject to continuing inquiries and one was awaiting travel documentation to enable removal to be arranged.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the Home Office consultation exercise into wheel clamping by private companies; what is the timetable for the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are still considering what action, if any, it would be appropriate to take in respect of wheel clamping on private land. We will make our conclusions known as soon as possible.

  Offences, London
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the total number of recorded offences, (b) the number of offences resulting in a caution and (c) the number of offences resulting in a conviction in the Metropolitan district for 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of notifiable offences and the number of offenders cautioned and convicted in the Metropolitan police district during 1992 is published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary tables 1992, Volume 3". A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those cities which are currently receiving, or which have in the past received, funding under the safer cities programme giving(a) the dates of commencement of the safer cities programme in each city, (b) the original planned completion date of each project as first announced and (c) the current planned or actual completion date of the programme for each city; and if he will show the amount of funding received by each city in each year since 1989 to the present date under the programme for (i) running costs, (ii) grants and (iii) other costs.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Twenty projects have been funded under phase 1 of the safer cities programme and 10 more have recently commenced under phase 2. A list of the projects with their start dates is shown in table A. When the phase 1 projects were set up, funding was guaranteed for a period of three years, after which decisions on alternatives, such as locally derived funding, would be made. Government funding for 16 of the phase 1 projects ceased in March 1994. The more recently established projects in Derby, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leicester and Middlesbrough will continue to receive funding until September 1995. The contracts with the managing agencies for the phase 2 projects run for three years.
  5
  The amounts of funding for each project in each year Date project since 1989 are set out in tables B, C and D. The figures for running and other costs are not readily available and are only approximate based on estimates.

  Table A

  Date project Commenced

  Phase 1

  Birmingham

  July 1989

  Bradford

  November 1988

  Bristol

  January 1990

  Coventry

  October 1989

  Derby

  October 1991

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  December 1991

  Hartlepool

  September 1989

  Hull

  October 1989

  Islington

  January 1990

  Leicester

  September 1991

  Lewisham

  July 1989

  Middlesbrough

  October 1991

  Nottingham

  April 1989

  Rochdale

  August 1989

  Salford

  February 1990

  Sunderland

  August 1989

  Table B

  Running costs (£'000)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Birmingham

  17

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Bradford

  18

  27

  25

  30

  27

  Bristol

  8

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Coventry

  15

  27

  25

  30

  33

  Derby

  —

  —

  12

  30

  34

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  12

  30

  33

  Hartlepool

  16

  27

  25

  30

  35

  Hull

  15

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Islington

  8

  27

  25

  30

  33

  Leicester

  —

  —

  12

  30

  34

  Lewisham

  16

  27

  25

  30

  25

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  12

  30

  35

  Nottingham

  18

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Rochdale

  17

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Salford

  8

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Sunderland

  17

  27

  25

  30

  35

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  27

  25

  30

  32

  Wandsworth

  8

  27

  25

  30

  25

  Wirral

  16

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Wolverhampton

  18

  27

  25

  30

  34

  Table C

  Grants (£'000)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Birmingham

  133

  287

  291

  242

  135

  Bradford

  290

  265

  295

  291

  131

  Bristol

  90

  321

  406

  270

  170

  Coventry

  133

  337

  385

  318

  240

  Derby

  —

  —

  2

  257

  270

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  258

  280

  Hartlepool

  122

  266

  309

  273

  186

  Hull

  74

  268

  290

  286

  145

  Islington

  88

  293

  362

  293

  169

  Leicester

  —

  —

  10

  267

  275

  Lewisham

  308

  375

  413

  287

  171

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  291

  272

  Nottingham

  264

  268

  305

  236

  170

  Rochdale

  101

  276

  315

  242

  175

  Salford

  100

  264

  315

  269

  169

  Sunderland

  172

  268

  264

  215

  183

  Tower Hamlets

  64

  270

  367

  250

  177

  Wandsworth

  67

  203

  249

  241

  116

  Wirral

  152

  320

  320

  248

  165

  Wolverhampton

  241

  275

  276

  207

  170

  6

  Date Project commenced

  Tower hamlets

  December 1989

  Wandsworth

  January 1990

  Wirral

  September 1989

  Wolverhampton

  February 1989

  Phase 2

  Blackburn1

  1 April 1994

  Burnley1

  1 February 1994

  Greenwich1

  1 February 1994

  Lambeth1

  1 February 1994

  Leeds1

  1 February 1994

  Manchester1

  1 April 1994

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1 February 1994

  Newcastle1

  1 February 1994

  Plymouth1

  1 February 1994

  Sheffield1

  1 February 1994

  1 Funding for these projects is included in the single regeneration budget, administered by the Department of the Environment, from 1 April 1994.

  7

  Table D

  Other costs (£'000)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Birmingham

  40

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Bradford

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Bristol

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Coventry

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Derby

  —

  —

  80

  95

  80

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  80

  95

  80

  Hartlepool

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Hull

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Islington

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Leicester

  —

  —

  80

  95

  80

  Lewisham

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  80

  95

  80

  Nottingham

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Rochdale

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Salford

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Sunderland

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Tower Hamlets

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Wandsworth

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Wirral

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Wolverhampton

  45

  85

  80

  95

  80

  Iran (Arms Sale Trial)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what connection Mr. William Harper, Mr. John Taylor and their co-defendants, tried in 1988 in relation to the sale of arms to Iran, had with the intelligence services; and what public interest immunity certificates were signed in respect of their trial.

  Mr. Howard
  From time to time Mr. Taylor provided helpful information to the security and intelligence services between 1978 and 1985 on matters unrelated to the charges brought against him in 1988. His co-defendants have had no connection with the security and intelligence services. As far as can be ascertained, no public interest immunity certificates were signed in respect of their trial.

  Remand Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the number, at the latest available date, of residents of each county in Wales who were held in remand centres in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 12 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many residents of each county in Wales were held in remand centres at the latest available date in (a) England or (b) Wales and (c) elsewhere.
  The available provisional information is for 31 December 1993 and is given in the attached table. It relates to the population in remand centres in England and Wales who were first committed to custody by a Welsh court.
  8

  Population in remand centres in England and wales on 31 December 1993 committed by courts in wales 1

  County of Welsh court first Committing

  Numbers held in remand centres from a welsh court

  England

  Wales

  Clwyd

  25

  0

  Dyfed

  0

  9

  Gwent

  0

  11

  Gwynedd

  16

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  37

  South Glamorgan

  0

  24

  West Glamorgan

  0

  31

  Powys

  2

  23

  Total

  44

  135

  1 Provisional figures

  Road Tax Offenders
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned in each of the last three years for non-payment of fines imposed for not having paid road tax on a motor vehicle.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 12 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many people were imprisoned in each of the last three years for non-payment of fines imposed for not having paid road tax on a motor vehicle.
  I am afraid that the information you have requested is not available centrally since the offence of non-payment of road tax is recorded under the general category of "other motoring offences".

  Police (Drug-related Incidents)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been (i) injured and (ii) killed in drug-related incidents in each of the last 10 years.
  9
  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts affecting local government that have been introduced by her Department since 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  Only one Act introduced by the Ministry since 1990 affects local government—the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Eggs
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available on the average consumption per person per week of eggs in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates of household consumption of eggs in Great Britain are provided by the Ministry's national food survey. The estimates, which are expressed in terms of average number of eggs per person per week, exclude eggs used in manufacturing or in catering and institutions.

  Number per person per week

  Egg consumption

  1984

  3.21

  1985

  3.15

  1986

  3.01

  1987

  2.89

  1988

  2.67

  1989

  2.29

  1990

  2.20

  1991

  2.25

  1992

  2.08

  1993

  1.92

  The long-term decline in the consumption of shell eggs in households reflects a number of factors. Some of these —more eating out, lower energy requirements due to the switch to more sedentary occupations—affect total household food consumption while others, such as reductions in cooked breakfasts, home baking and high teas, will have particularly affected household consumption of eggs. The use of eggs within processed food products is, however, increasing.

  Fisheries Guidance
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date she expects to announce which parts of the new regulation relating to the financial instrument for fisheries guidance will be implemented in the United Kingdom.

  Occupier's net income on wholly owner-occupied farms1

  Year2

  England

  Wales

  Indices 4

  Indices 4

  £'000 Per farm

  Current prices

  Real terms5

  £'000 Per farm

  Current prices

  Real terms5

  1986–87

  12.0

  96

  123

  5.4

  69

  88

  1987–88

  12.5

  100

  123

  8.2

  105

  128

  1988–89

  12.6

  99

  114

  14.7

  158

  183

  1989–90

  14.1

  105

  113

  10.2

  113

  121

  10
  Mr. Jack
  We shall make an announcement when we have drawn conclusions, in the light of our consultations with all interested parties, on what range of measures will represent the best use of taxpayers' money in this area.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost of official entertaining in her Department in each year since 1990–91; if she will list the receptions held each year at her Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Jack
  The following amounts have been spent on official hospitality in each year since 1990–91:

  £

  1990–91

  65,229.48

  1991–92

  89,014.54

  1992–93

  80,314.80

  1993–941

  76,401.59

  1 To end of February 1994.

  The total cost of official entertainment is included in the running cost expenditure for my Department, which is published every year in the annual report; the entertainment budget is used for a variety of functions, including receptions. Separate figures are not kept for individual functions.

  The principal items included in this expenditure were given on 27 October, Official Report, column 659.

  Farming Incomes
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average net annual income of farm owners in the United Kingdom in real and cash terms in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]: Information is not available on the total income of farm owners. However, in the farm business survey conducted in each country of the United Kingdom, data on incomes of farm businesses are collected from a sample of 3,900 farms which are classified as full-time holdings. Results are not readily available for the United Kingdom as a whole, but the table provides information on occupier's net income for wholly owner-occupied farms in each of our four home countries. Year-to-year comparisons can best be made by reference to the indices shown in the tables in both current prices and real terms. These are based on constant samples of farms between consecutive years. The method of farm classification has been changed and results are available only on the new classification from 1986–87 onwards.
  11

  Year2

  England

  Wales

  Indices4

  Indices4

  £'000 per farm

  Current prices

  Real terms5

  £'000 Per farm

  Current prices

  Real terms5

  1990–91

  12.9

  93

  92

  7.4

  81

  79

  1991–92

  14.4

  102

  95

  11.4

  107

  100

  1992–93

  19.1

  121

  110

  14.6

  146

  132

  Scotland3

  Northern Ireland

  1986–87

  7.2

  59

  75

  3.1

  65

  81

  1987–88

  11.6

  95

  117

  9.1

  192

  231

  1988–89

  12.3

  98

  113

  9.2

  188

  215

  1989–90

  13.0

  108

  116

  7.2

  149

  158

  1990–91

  14.0

  108

  106

  3.0

  64

  62

  1991–92

  10.1

  84

  78

  4.9

  87

  80

  1992–93

  16.7

  146

  131

  9.1

  165

  147

  1 Occupier's net income represents the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and investment in the farm business.

  2 Accounting years end on average in February.

  3 Includes holdings which are both wholly and mainly owner-occupied.

  4 Average of 1989–90—1991–92 = 100.

  5 Deflated by the Retail Price Index.

  Brixham and South Devon Inshore Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish the name, size, type and home port of all the Brixham and south-west Devon inshore fishing vessels accepted to date as being eligible for decommissioning.

  Mr. Jack
  I am not able to publish information on individual vessels. However, of the 135 vessels decommissioned under the 1993 scheme, five were from Brixham and four from Plymouth. They ranged from 10 to 20 m in length and from nine to 42 gross registered tonnes. The majority were demersal trawlers.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement setting out the view of Her Majesty's Government on enlargement of the European Union and its consequences for the Brixham and south Devon inshore fishing fleet.

  Mr. Jack
  I set out the satisfactory outcome of the negotiations on fisheries between the European Union and Norway in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 22 March,Official Report, column 120. In that reply I explained that the common fisheries policy rules applying within the waters of the Twelve generally, and the special rules applying to Spain and Portugal under their accession treaty are unchanged by the agreement. With reference to access for in-shore fishing, the Norwegian treaty will make no changes, but it will contain a joint EU-Norway declaration undertaking to pay special attention to the interests of coastal communities when the Council decides the arrangements on access to waters within the 12-mile limit which are to apply after the year 2002.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on access by the Spanish fleet to the English channel; and what assessments she has made of its consequences for the Brixham and south Devon inshore fishing fleet.

  Mr. Jack
  Adjustments to the current restrictions on Spanish and Portuguese access to the waters and fisheries of the other 10 member states are for decision by the 12
  Council of Ministers. A proposal setting out the broad principles for the adjustment of Spanish and Portuguese fishing arrangements is before the Fisheries Council meeting on 12 April. Subsequently, detailed proposals are expected from the Commission within the next few months. In negotiations on them, I shall continue to promote United Kingdom fishing interests, including those of Brixham and south Devon fishermen.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his United States counterpart made available to Her Majesty's Government the United States proposals to enhance nuclear non-proliferation on the Indian sub-continent before they were put to India in March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in frequent contact with the United States Government on a range of non-proliferation issues, including nuclear non-proliferation in south Asia.

  Malta
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 478, what are the institutional problems which were identified in respect of Malta's application to join the EC.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to page 19 of the Commission opinion on Malta's application for membership, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. This lists the institutional problems in respect of Malta's application to join the EC as: the small number of Maltese officials with sufficient international experience to play a full part in the decision-making and operational processes of the Community institutions; the small size of the diplomatic corps and its inexperience in co-operating with other European countries; the difficulties Malta might have in taking on the Presidency; and the more general institutional problems that would be posed by the accession of Malta or any other applicant of a similar size. The Council endorsed the opinion in October 1993.

  EU Qualified Majority Voting
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration was given, before Her Majesty's Government agreed to the Maastricht treaty, to the implications of that treaty for qualified majority voting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Before agreeing to the Maastricht treaty, we considered in detail the implications of the treaty for the use of qualified majority voting. In particular, we satisfied ourselves that in areas such as foreign policy, where supreme national interests are at stake, unanimity would continue to apply.

  East Timor
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he and the European Union have been making to the Indonesian Government about the future of East Timor leader Xanana Gusmao.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have made representations to the Indonesian Government about the importance of International Committee of the Red Cross access to Gusmao, and his humane treatment while in detention.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) of 28 March,Official Report, column 544, if he will set out the criteria he adopts to evaluate the reliability of information sources on the number of deaths that have taken place in East Timor since the Indonesian takeover.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We understand that none of those who have quoted figures for the numbers killed in East Timor support their estimates with detailed recorded statistics.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East of 29 March,Official Report, column 617, what considerations led him to conclude that sanctions against Indonesia over East Timor's occupation will not be either (a) appropriate or (b) effective.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Sanctions would not, in our view, bring about a change in the circumstances of East Timor. We believe that the current dialogue between Indonesia and Portugal under the United Nations Secretary-General's auspices offers the best prospect for reaching agreement on a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement on the future of the territory.

  North Korea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on moves to bring the North Korean nuclear weapon issue to the United Nations Security Council; and what is the likely timetable in respect of such moves.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 24 March, the International Atomic Energy Agency director general reported on the most recent round of IAEA inspections in North Korea to 14
  the United Nations Security Council. After subsequent discussions, the President of the Security Council issued a statement on 31 March in which he called upon North Korea to allow IAEA inspectors full access to all of its declared nuclear facilities. The President also declared that further Security Council consideration of the issue would take place, if necessary, in order to achieve full implementation of North Korea's safeguards agreement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the United Nations Security Council meeting on 31 March in connection with nuclear matters and North Korea; and what stance he took.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 March the President of the United Nations Security Council made a statement on North Korea, in which he called upon North Korea to allow IAEA inspectors access to all of its declared nuclear facilities, as previously agreed by North Korea on 15 February. The President also declared that further Security Council consideration of the matter would take place, if necessary, in order to achieve full implementation of North Korea's safeguards agreement. All members of the Security Council supported the statement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is China's position in relation to the North Korean nuclear arms crisis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  China participated fully in the discussions within the United Nations Security Council which led to the presidential statement on this subject issued by the Council on 31 March.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council special meeting of 29 March.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There was no special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 29 March.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining his Department's policy concerning recruitment in the United Kingdom of mercenaries for a foreign army at war with another state friendly with the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The recruitment of mercenaries in this country is always deplorable, and in some cases unlawful by reason of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 which prohibits the recruitment of persons to serve with the forces of a foreign state at war with another foreign state which is at peace with the United Kingdom. Moreover, if any evidence came to light that British citizens recruited as mercenaries were engaged in illegal activities themselves, that evidence would be referred to the prosecuting authorities.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts affecting local government that have been introduced by his Department since 1990.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Departmental Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 7 March,Official Report, columns 38-40, what was the total cost of the refurbishment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building at King Charles street, London SW1.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Between 1978 and the planned completion date in early 1997, the estimated total cost at today's prices is £100 million.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Sri Lanka in the past year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are in frequent contact with the Sri Lankan authorities on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the authorities in Sri Lanka about human rights violations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We regularly discuss our human rights concerns with the Sri Lankan authorities, most recently at the 50th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in March.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British high commissioner to Sri Lanka last visited Jaffna.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The British High Commissioner last visited Jaffna on 18 February 1993.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts Her Majesty's Government have had with Tamil political organisations(a) in Sri Lanka and (b) elsewhere in the last year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have had regular contacts with representatives of a wide range of Tamil political opinion both in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions were made at the Palestinian-Israeli talks in Cairo about the establishing of an international observer corps in the occupied territories; which nations will be represented; how large it will be; and how it will be armed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Israel and the PLO have agreed to deploy in Hebron an international presence of 160 observers composed of personnel from Norway, Denmark 16
  and Italy. The observers will be lightly armed for self-defence, and will operate for an initial period of three months.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been arrested by the Israeli forces in the occupied territories since the Hebron massacre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No exact figures are available for the number of people arrested since the Hebron massacre. We have no evidence to suggest that the number of arrests has risen in this period.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, after the Cairo talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Britain has been asked for, or has offered, any assistance to support the peace process in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not been asked to contribute observers for the temporary international presence in Hebron agreed upon in Cairo by Israel and the PLO. We remain ready, together with our EU partners, to contribute to an international presence in the rest of the occupied territories if requested to by the parties.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific pressue he is putting on(a) the Israeli Government and (b) the PLO in respect of the peace process in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our EU partners have urged on both sides the necessity of a speedy conclusion of the negotiations on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, most recently in statements condemning the attacks in Afula and Ashdod on 6 and 7 April.

  Palestinian Police Force
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on co-ordinating the international contributions to the creation of a Palestinian police force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A co-ordinating committee for international assistance to a Palestinian police force has been set up in Cairo, chaired by Norway and with the participation of the European Union.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pledges were made by the EU and the United Kingdom in Cairo on 24 March about the creation of a Palestinian police force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom stated that we were providing 200 sets of riot control equipment and training courses in the United Kingdom for senior police officers. The European Union pledged $250,000 for training for municipal police, to form the basis for a larger project later.

  Luxembourg Compromise
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether vital interests within the terms of the Luxembourg compromise were at stake in the issue of 23 or 27 vote at the Ioannina meeting.
  17
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Luxembourg compromise was not applicable to the issue of 23 or 27 votes at the Ionnina meeting. The Luxembourg compromise refers to the case of"decisions which may be taken by majority vote".

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Luxembourg compromise enables Britain to prevent a decision being made in any case which is vital to Britain's interests and where qualified majority voting applies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  If the United Kingdom believed that, on an issue of very important national interest, it was in danger of being outvoted because qualified majority voting applied, it could invoke the Luxembourg compromise. In accordance with this, the members of the Council would then continue discussion until agreement was reached on a solution which could be adopted by all member states.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government's policy was in 1990 on the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection of Iraq's nuclear installations; and what it is currently.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy in 1990 was to support IAEA inspection activities in Iraq under the terms of its fullscope safeguards agreement.

  Since the Gulf war and the adoption of Security Council Resolution 687 in April 1991, we have supported, and will continue to support, the United Nations Special Commission and the IAEA in their task of destroying or removing all of Iraq's nuclear weapons-usable material and ensuring that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme cannot be regenerated.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the sending of United Nations inspection and observer teams to the marshlands of Iraq and southern Iraq to monitor human rights violations there.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraq is continuing to refuse access to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iraq and United Nations human rights monitors, contrary to resolutions on the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The Commission recently requested the Secretary-General to send human rights monitors to neighbouring countries. We will continue to press Iraq to allow monitors to enter the country.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest information about the transfer of the Moroccan civilian population to the Western Sahara; and what representations he is making at the United Nations on this matter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no reliable information about such movement of the civilian population.

  We welcomed the Secretary-General's latest report. We fully support the proposal that the Identification Commission should complete the analysis of all
  18
  applications received and proceed with the identification and registration of all potential voters in the referendum on the Western Sahara, on the basis of the Secretary-General's compromise proposals.

  Military Nuclear Powers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are military nuclear powers; which other countries are thought to have mastered the necessary technology; and which other countries are thought to be pursuing military nuclear power status.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which came into force in 1970, recognises the existence of five nuclear weapon states: the United Kingdom, United States, France, China and the Russian Federation. The remaining 159 parties to the NPT are non-nuclear weapon states. We expect all of these states to abide by their treaty obligation not to develop nuclear weapons. We urge those 27 states which have yet to accede to the NPT to do so at the earliest possible date.

  Nuclear Capability
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the difference in meaning between the terms "sub-strategic" and "tactical" as used by his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When applied to the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons, both terms refer to a capability of carrying out an action more limited than a strategic strike, as a means of inducing an aggressor to cease aggression without triggering strategic nuclear exchanges.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the nuclear device exploded by India in 1974 is considered by Her Majesty's Government to be a strategic or sub-strategic nuclear capability.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no evidence on which to base a firm conclusion on the nature of the event in question.

  Nuclear Capability
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether North Korea is considered by Her Majesty's Government to be pursuing a strategic or sub-strategic nuclear capability.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no direct evidence that North Korea has developed a nuclear weapons capability. However, as a result of North Korea's consistent failure to co-operate fully with its IAEA safeguards agreement, the agency's director general has stated that he cannot conclude that nuclear material has not been diverted for military use in North Korea. We urge North Korea to respond positively to the statement issued by the President of the United Nations Security Council on 31 March and to comply fully with its safeguards agreement and affirm permanent commitment to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the nuclear threat
  19
  posed by Israeli possession of nuclear weapons would be considered by Her Majesty's Government to be strategic or sub-strategic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no direct evidence that Israel has developed a nuclear weapons programme, though we take seriously reports that Israel has such a programme. We believe that Israel should allay suspicions about her nuclear progamme by acceding to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state, and by concluding a full scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits by the United Kingdom personnel to sites in Russia under the United States-United Kingdom-Russian trilateral agreement on biological weapons of September 1992.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Kingdom and United States experts have visited five non-military biological sites in Russia since the trilateral agreement between the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia was concluded in September 1992. The first visit was made in November 1992, followed by visits in September 1993 and January 1994.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what computer systems his Department has brought in, for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Goodlad
  During the last five years the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has brought in computer systems to enable FCO staff at home and overseas to carry out their work more effectively. Typical uses are for political, management, aid, commercial, consular, accounts and information work. A large number of these systems are still in use but will be replaced in the normal computer replacement cycle of five to seven years as they become obsolete.

  The total cost for each of the last five years starting in financial year 1989–90 was—£'000—2,778, 7,078, 15,072, 19,063, and 17,526.

  European Agreements
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether all agreements between member state Governments of the European Communities and the European Commission require formal extension on the appointment of a new European Commission.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The need to extend an agreement would depend on the nature of the agreement.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers in his Department were approached to sign public interest immunity certificates in connection with the Matrix Churchill trial and declined to do so.
  20
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, signed a public interest immunity certificate and a supplemental certificate in relation to the case Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Henderson, Abraham and Allen. He was the only Minister in this Department invited to sign a certificate in this case.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are represented, with what numbers of troops, in Somalia at the present time; what changes are planned for the rest of the current year; and in what parts of Somalia each of these military forces are serving.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At 21 March 1994 UNOSOM II was made up of the following contingents:

  Country

  Strength

  Australia

  54

  Bangladesh

  978

  Belgium

  4

  Botswana

  342

  Canada

  5

  Egypt

  1,680

  Greece

  2

  India

  4,969

  Ireland

  83

  Italy

  788

  Korea

  3

  Kuwait

  120

  Malaysia

  1,065

  Morocco

  1,359

  Nepal

  313

  New Zealand

  49

  Nigeria

  659

  Norway

  26

  Pakistan

  5,697

  Romania

  231

  Saudi Arabia

  150

  Tunisia

  1

  UAE

  317

  USA

  7

  Zimbabwe

  1,082

  TOTAL

  19,883

  Most west European troop contributors, except Ireland, either withdrew their contingents or, in the case of Greece, scaled them down to a minimal presence before the end of March 1994. The Saudi Arabians have also withdrawn their contingents. In addition, Morocco and United Arab Republic are expected to withdraw their contingents by the end of April 1994.

  Some 1,550 additional Pakistani troops and 250 Indonesian troops are expected to deploy to Somalia by the end of April 1994, which will bring the total to 19,225. Given the current flux in troop movements, the United Nations is not able to give up-to-date details on the location of each contingent.

  Paul Goodall
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received regarding the detention and trial of Abdul Hadi al Gahtari currently held in jail in Zenica, central Bosnia for the murder of Paul Goodall, a driver working for the United Nations.
  21
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of newspaper reports that Mr. al Gahtari has escaped from police custody. We have asked the Bosnian authorities to look into these allegations as a matter of urgency. We have raised this case with the Bosnian authorities on a number of occasions, most recently when a Foreign Office official visited Sarajevo on 29 March. We have also been in touch via the Bosnian embassy in London and our missions in Geneva. We have reminded the Bosnian Government of our concern that their investigations into the murder of Mr. Goodall should be taken forward quickly and those responsible brought to justice. The Overseas Development Administration has been in contact with the judicial authorities in Zenica and has engaged the services of a local lawyer to represent the interests of Mr. Goodall's family.

  Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information technology consultants his Department has employed, for what purpose and at what total cost for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Information technology consultants have been employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide expertise not available within the Department on a range of subjects. They have been used to give specialist advice on IT strategy development, communications, cabling, software development and support, project management, systems analysis, contingency planning, procurement and management information systems.

  The total cost for each of the past five years starting in financial year 1989–90 was—£'000—1,744, 2,964, 3,412, 4,688 and 5,156.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state, in respect of each of the undertakings announced by the Prime Minister in his oral statement of 29 March,Official Report, columns 797-99, concerning the assent of Her Majesty's Government to the draft treaty on enlargement of the European Community and Union (a) in which document they are recorded and on whose authority, (b) where they may be obtained or examined, (c) if they are to be incorporated in whole or part in the draft treaty and (d) the nature of the additional post-statement communication from the European Commission to which he referred in his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South of 30 March, Official Report, column 921.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The undertakings in the social field announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 29 March were oral assurances and are not recorded in a document. They will not therefore be incorporated, in whole or in part, in the draft treaty. The additional confirmation from the Commission to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred in his oral answer on 30 March took the form of contacts between his office and the office of Mr. Delors.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the response of the Arab League to the Libyan proposal that the two suspects in the Lockerbie incident be tried before the International Court of Justice in the Hague with Scottish judges sitting on the bench applying Scottish law; and what is now his policy on the suggestion.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following its ministerial meeting in Cairo on 26 to 27 March, the Arab League issued a resolution urging the Security Council to consider this proposal.

  Our policy on the suggestion was set out in a written reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 8 February 1994, Official Report, column 135.

  Morocco
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government will make to the Moroccan Government to urge them to continue the United Nations-sponsored dialogue begun on 17 July 1993.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General in the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Moroccan Government concerning the disappearance of Saharawi people in the Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We were pleased to note the appointment of a Minister for Human Rights in Morocco last November. The Moroccan Government are aware of the importance we attach to human rights and we, together with our European Union partners, will urge them to continue the process of reform.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money Her Majesty's Government have spent financing the United Nations monitoring organisation MINURSO—the mission for the referendum in Western Sahara; and what benefits this has brought to United Kingdom taxpayers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has paid $8,265,226—£5.5 million—in United Nations-assessed contributions to MINURSO since the operation began in September 1991. In addition, the costs of the United Kingdom military contribution, withdrawn in October 1993, were: financial year 1991–92: £71,600; financial year 1992–93: £815,000; financial year 1993–94: £310,000.

  A solution to the conflict in Western Sahara would enhance stability in the region, ease humanitarian suffering and offer potential international trade opportunities. All parties regard MINURSO's presence as instrumental to achieving an eventual settlement, hence the participation in the operation of Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Venezuela and, until the United Kingdom withdrawal, all five permanent members of the Security Council.
  23
  United Nations peacekeeping is an international obligation of member states, and is resourced according to internationally recognised criteria based upon national income.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pressure Her Majesty's Government have put on the Moroccan Government since the ceasefire on 6 September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Moroccan Government are aware of our wish to see progress towards the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. We will maintain our position of strict neutrality in the dispute and continue to support the United Nations Secretary-General in his efforts to resolve outstanding problems, particularly those concerning identification and registration of those eligible to vote in the referendum.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government will be making to the Moroccan Government during the forthcoming signing of the GATT agreement concerning the abuse of human rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Reception, Santiago
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost to Her Majesty's Government of the reception at the British embassy in Santiago attended by Lady Thatcher.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  About £1,400.

  "The European Elections"
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of production and distribution of the pamphlet now being sent to the electorate entitled "The European Elections"; and what contribution to the cost was made from European Community funds.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Production and initial distribution costs amounted to £35,281. This covered the design, the printing of 100,000 copies and the mailing of 38,230 copies. An existing freephone facility is being used to respond to requests for further copies. Each request incurs a postage and handling charge which varies according to the number of booklets involved. Due to demand, a reprint of 150,000 copies has now been ordered at a cost of £11,007. European Comunity funds were not involved.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times General Pinochet has visited the British embassy in Santiago since 1990; and how many other meetings he has held either with embassy staff and officials or at which the embassy was represented over the same period.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  General Pinochet attended a recent reception in honour of Lady Thatcher at our ambassador's residence, but has never visited the embassy.

  Our ambassador called on General Pinochet, who is commander in chief of the army, during his initial courtesy calls. His predecessor paid one similar call.
  24
  Our defence attaché has met General Pinochet twice in the course of routine duties.

  Stability Pact (Inaugural Conference)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a date has been fixed for the inaugural conference of the stability pact to be convened in Paris by the European Union according to the decisions taken at the European Council in Brussels on 10-11 December 1993; which Ministers will represent the United Kingdom; and what the agenda will be at that conference.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The inaugural conference of the stability pact will be held in Paris from 26 to 27 May 1994 at Foreign Minister level. All countries which participate in CSCE meetings will be invited. United Kingdom representation has still to be decided. The agenda for the conference has not yet been finalised; preparations are continuing in consultation with a wide range of countries.

  European Communities Act 1972
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask Parliament to ammend article 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to make inapplicable, in the United Kingdom, without consent of Parliament, any decision of the EEC to which the United Kingdom is opposed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. To amend article 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in this manner would put the United Kingdom in breach of its international treaty obligations.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current military situation in Sierra Leone and its effect on displaced people and refugees and the work of aid agencies, with particular reference to British agencies in the country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The recent intensification of attacks by rebels in the east and south-east of the country has forced the movement of rural inhabitants into larger towns and camps. On 12 March a convoy of clearly-marked Catholic mission and hospital vehicles was ambushed, and an Irish priest, a Dutch doctor and his family were killed. As a result, most British aid agencies have withdrawn expatriate workers from the area. At least one agency has withdrawn both expatriate and local staff.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a direct contribution to the funds of political parties in Mozambique for political training and the development of political structures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: The Rome peace accords, endorsed by the international community, envisaged assistance to allow RENAMO to participate in the elections as an essential step towards democracy.

  We propose to help with the democratic process in Mozambique by contributing £500,000 to the United

  25
  Nations trust fund for the implementation of the peace process in Mozambique. Our contribution is subject to confirmation of the agreement of the Government of Mozambique. Several other major donors are already contributing.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Premature Mortality
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the latest studies funded by the Economic and Social Research Council of causes of premature mortality related to(a) environmental pollution, (b) deprived material conditions of work and (c) other forms of material deprivation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest studies funded by the Economic and Social Research Council of causes of premature mortality related to(a) environmental pollution, (b) deprived material conditions of work and (c) other forms of material deprivation are as follows:

  a. Environmental Pollution
  The Effects of Warmer Winters on Morbidity and Mortality in Great Britain;
  Climate Change Melanoma Risk and Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation.
  Climate Change and Human Health: A Review;
  Climate Change and the Incidence and Costs of Food Poisoning in England and Wales.
  ESRC-funded Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (co-located at University College London and the University of East Anglia).

  b. Deprived Material Conditions of Work
  There are no projects specifically dealing with the relation between mortality and deprived conditions of work although employment is an aspect of much of the more general research on deprivation and mortality which is listed under (c).

  c. Other Forms of Material Deprivation
  The Health of an Invisible Minority: The Irish in Britain Liverpool University
  Income Distribution and National Mortality Rates
  Sussex University, Centre for Medical Research
  "Deprivation" Indicators: Stability and Reliability over Locality and Lifecycle
  City University
  Influence of Geographical Setting on Social Differences in Health
  University of London
  Limiting Long Term Illness: Geographical Inequalities and Their Associations
  University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences
  Health Inequalities Between Women and Their Families City University
  Health and Social Circumstances from Birth to Mid-Life London: Institute of Child Health
  The Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities Policy Studies Institute
  26
  A Comparison of Women's Health Concerns in Four Societies: A Feasibility Study.

  In addition to the above studies funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, further work is also being financed by the Medical Research Council on issues referred to in this parliamentary question. The Department of Health and the universities may also be funding some research which may be relevant.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the latest studies funded by the Medical Research Council of causes of premature mortality related to(a) environmental pollution, (b) deprived material conditions of work and (c) other forms of material deprivation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest studies funded by the Medical Research Council of causes of premature mortality related to(a) environmental pollution, (b) deprived material conditions of work and (c) other forms of material deprivation are as follows:

  (a) Environmental Pollution
  The MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit in Southampton:

  (i) Carcinogenicity of pesticides and styrene.

  (ii) exposure to aluminium in drinking water and possible association with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease.

  The MRC Cell Mutation Unit (University of Sussex, Brighton, and the MRC Toxicology Unit in Leicester jointly):
  Mutant frequency in individuals exposed to petrochemicals as a result of the Braer oil spillage.

  (b) Deprived Material Conditions of Work

  The MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit in Southampton:

  (i) the possible association between the risk of leukaemia and lymphoma and father's occupational exposure to radiation.

  (ii) The possible link between papillomavirus and lung cancer in butchers.

  (iii) the relation of mortality to specific aspects of work in submariners.

  (iv) whether exposure to mineral acid mists poses an important risk to health.

  (v) incidence of cancer in molecular biology research workers.

  (vi) mortality and cancer incidence of workers from a paper mill.

  (vii) respiratory disease in radiographers.

  (viii) national analysis of occupational mortality.

  The MRC Cell Mutation Unit (University of Sussex, Brighton)Mutant frequencies in workers exposed to low levels of radiation in the nuclear industry.

  The MRC Radiobiology Unit The effects of alpha radiation on haemopoietic stem cells in the context of radiation leukaemogenesis.

  The Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine Possible explanations for the observation that civil servants in the lowest grades have higher levels of heart disease, chronic bronchitis, diabetes and other illnesses.

  c) Other Forms of Material Deprivation

  The MRC Cell Mutation Unit (University of Sussex, Brighton)Mutant frequency in the parents of children who have developed leukaemia.

  MRC Medical Sociology Unit in Glasgow The differences in morbidity and mortality at the national level between areas of residence.

  Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Gibson Laboratories, Oxford An investigation of cancer mortality in the vicinity of nuclear establishments in England and Wales.

  The H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol—
  27
  MRC supported research

  Possible links between exposure to domestic radon and various non-lung cancers.

  In addition to the above studies funded by the Medical Research Council, further work is also being financed by the Economic and Social Research Council on issues referred to in this parliamentary question. The Department of Health and universities may also be funding some research which may be relevant.

  Charter Forums
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the dates and venues of meetings of the charter forums and the number of people who attended.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Date

  Venue

  1Attendance

  21 June 1993

  Manchester

  226

  5 July 1993

  Birmingham

  190

  12 October 1993

  Newcastle

  174

  15 October 1993

  Bristol

  163

  2 November 1993

  Nottingham

  144

  9 November 1993

  Cardiff

  163

  24 November 1993

  Southampton

  155

  20 December 1993

  Edinburgh

  286

  10 March 1994

  Leeds

  148

  1 Registered audience. Totals exclude forum organisers and Cabinet Office staff who attended.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he gave to the implication for parliamentary questions in preparing his revised draft code of practice on Government information section XV.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The code of practice on access to Government information has no implications for the practice of the House concerning parliamentary questions. The draft code published in Cm 2290 included in exemption (xv) a reference to information which could not be sought in a parliamentary question. This has been dropped in the final version of the code, which I announced on 29 March Official Report, columns 608–9. Many members of the public using the code will not be familiar with parliamentary practice on admissibility of questions as described in "Erskine May". Furthermore, the code covers requests for information which may be addressed directly to non-ministerial departments and public bodies, in respect of which the rules on admissibility would be irrelevant.

  Civil Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the results of the Efficiency Unit's multi-departmental scrutiny of the management of the Government's civil estate.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am currently considering the report of the scrutiny with my colleagues and will announce the Government's conclusions as soon as possible.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the efficiency unit has to scrutinise the management of the NHS estate.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The efficiency unit has been consulted about the current three-year review of the NHS Estates Agency, but plans no efficiency scrutiny in this area.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total cost of official entertaining in his Department in each year since April 1992; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Expenditure on official entertaining in 1992–93 and between April 1993 and February 1994 was as follows:

  1992–93 £

  April 1993 to February 1994 £

  Cabinet Office/Office of Public Service and Science (excluding the Prime Minister's Office)

  199,000

  47,300

  COI

  4,640

  5,680

  HMSO2

  16,000

  21,950

  1 Includes £59,000 relating to the launch of Chessington Computer Centre as an executive agency.

  2 Figures for HMSO cover the calendar years 1992 and 1993.

  The entertainment budget is used for a variety of functions including receptions. Separate figures for individual functions are not kept centrally.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what computer systems his Department have brought in, for what function, and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case if the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. David Davis
  My department has no computer systems which are common to the whole of OPSS and its associated agencies. Networked office automation systems are, however, widely implemented across the Department. Costs for these systems, for the last five years, are as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  0.9

  1990–91

  1.9

  1991–92

  2.3

  1992–93

  3.0

  1993–94

  1.2

  The figures above incorporate the total IT systems expenditure by OPSS Agencies. The cost of systems to support more specific business functions in the agencies, such as recruitment, training, financial management and payroll are therefore included.

  Approximate figures for the Central Office of Information are:
  29

  £

  1989–90

  464,000

  1990–91

  411,000

  1991–92

  95,000

  1992–93

  110,000

  1993–94

  79,000

  All of the above systems are still in use, although many have been upgraded and enhanced during the period in question.

  Costs for information technology systems for HMSO are not readily available because of the decentralised nature of their operations.

  Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information technology consultants his Department has employed in each of the last five years; for what purpose; and at what total cost.

  Mr. David Davis
  My department has placed a large number of information technology consultancy contracts during the last five years. It is impossible to give a brief summary; I will however write to the hon. Member.

  I regret that the costs of IT consultancy are not separately identifiable within my Department's overall expenditure on consultancy and related services.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Staff
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) what is the limit on the number of passes hon. Members can have for their staff; when this was agreed; and if the Administration Committee will now review the number;

  (2) what appeal an hon. Member has if an additional staff pass is refused by the Serjeant at Arms.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  On 30 January 1989 the House agreed to recommendations contained in the Second Report from the House of Commons Services Committee of Session 1987–88 that, in general, no Member should be entitled to apply for a photo-identity pass for more than three individual members of their personal staff; and that those limits should not be transferable. Any appeal against those rules should be submitted to the Administration Committee. The Committee has no immediate plans to review these arrangements.

  Telephone Facilities
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee (1) if he will call for a report into why it was impossible to ring central Liverpool from the House on Tuesday 29 March; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) for how long the telephone connection between the House and central Liverpool was unavailable on Tuesday 29 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have been asked to reply. This is a matter for the Communications Manager.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the 10 most expensive answers to parliamentary questions answered in the past 10 years for which calculations have been made; and what was their total cost.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Birmingham
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit the city of Birmingham.

  The Prime Minister
  As part of my programme of regional tours to all parts of the country I had the pleasure of visiting Birmingham only yesterday.

  Efficiency Unit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many hours per week his adviser on efficiency spends on matters(a) relating to work of the Efficiency Unit and (b) relating to competition and purchasing.

  The Prime Minister
  The time my adviser devotes to matters relating to efficiency scrutinies on the one hand and competition and purchasing on the other, and the split between the two, depends on the matters which arise or are referred to him for advice.

  European Community Treaties (Veto)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer following his statement on 29 March,Official Report, column 806, if he will list each of the extant treaties of the European Community and cite the relevant articles therein that provide Her Majesty's Government with veto powers other than those linked to the Luxembourg declaration.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom effectively has a veto in areas where decisions are taken by unanimity. Unanimity applies under the following articles of the treaty of Rome, as amended by subsequent treaties:

  Article

  8a

  99

  1091.5

  157

  198b

  8b

  100

  121

  159

  201

  8e

  100c

  128

  165

  209

  14.7

  103a.1

  130

  166

  217

  51

  103a.2

  130b

  168a.2

  223

  57.2

  104c.14

  130d

  168a.4

  227

  70

  105.6

  130i

  188

  228.2

  73c(2)

  106.5

  130o

  188b

  235

  75.3

  109.1

  130s

  189a

  —

  76

  109f.7

  136

  194

  —

  93.2

  1091.4

  145

  198a

  —

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what requests he has made in his recent dicussions with the Indian Prime Minister for an all-party delegation of hon. Members to be allowed to visit the Indian-administered area of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.
  31
  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the issue of access to Kashmir in general terms with the Indian Prime Minister when I met him on 14 March. I welcome the recent visit to Kashmir by some United Kingdom parliamentarians. We have frequently urged the Indian Government to allow visits by independent observers and human rights groups to Kashmir.

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the funds so far allocated as part of his Darwin initiative meet the recommendation of his advisory committee that projects are carried out in co-operation with local people.

  The Prime Minister
  There are currently 53 projects being funded under the Darwin initiative in almost 40 countries. All the projects involve collaboration with local universities and institutions, conservation organisations or individuals.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the basis of evidence available to Her Majesty's Government in relation to alleged Libyan involvement in the destruction of Pan Am 103, which has provided the foundation on which the Secretary of State for Scotland has initiated legal action against the insurers of Pan Am in relation to alleged negligence at the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt.

  The Prime Minister
  The civil action is against Pan American World Airways Inc. for damage to the A74 at Lockerbie caused by the destruction of its aircraft. The action is concerned with alleged negligence by Pan American World Airways Inc. and not with alleged Libyan involvement in the destruction of the aircraft. The action is currently being settled.

  Tigris and Euphrates Valleys
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what medical advice has gone to Her Majesty's Government from agencies of the United Nations and Medecins sans Frontieres about malnutrition-related disease, the lack of pharmaceuticals and the shortage of water-pump and water-filter equipment in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

  The Prime Minister
  We receive general reports on the humanitarian needs in Iraq from the United Nations agencies and others, although not from Medecins Sans Frontieres. I understand that researchers' attempts to assess nutrition in Iraq have been hampered by a lack of reliable data.

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

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  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.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Prime Minister how many political advisers were employed by Cabinet Ministers in each year since 1979; and what was the cost of these advisers in constant 1994 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested has not been collected centrally at regular intervals. Information available on the number of special advisers, including expert advisers' total pay bills and aggregate figures, is as follows:

  Table 1: Number of special advisers

  As at:

  March 1994

  39

  May 1993

  42

  November 1992

  38

  November 1991

  39

  October 1990

  33

  October 1989

  31

  July 1988

  30

  Table 2: Cost of special advisers

  As at:

  1Paybill £million

  21993–94 prices £million

  March 1994

  1.38

  1.38

  June 1993

  1.37

  1.42

  September 1992

  1.30

  1.37

  September 1991

  1.10

  1.23

  July 1990

  0.95

  1.12

  June 1989

  0.93

  1.22

  September 1988

  0.74

  1.02

  1 Not including ERNIC and other personnel overheads

  2 Calculated using the GDP deflator

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 803, (1) how much is paid from public funds to lords lieutenant towards the cost of their ceremonial uniform;

  (2) how much is paid from public funds to lords lieutenant towards the cost of their ceremonial uniforms.

  The Prime Minister
  In 1993 the total contribution paid from public funds to lords lieutenant on appointment towards the cost of their ceremonial uniforms was £4,952.07. In 1992 the figure was £6,932.50.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to advertise vacancies as and when they arise for lords lieutenant and deputy lords lieutenant in the relevant regional and local press.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Lords lieutenant are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on my advice under Crown prerogative. The choice of deputy lieutenants lies in the hands of the lords lieutenant.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report column 788, if he will give a breakdown of the £18,385 spent on official gifts in 1993 giving a description and the recipient.

  The Prime Minister
  A range of small gifts were given to a large number of individuals for official purposes.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) of 29 March,Official Report, column 794, who is the right hon. Friend to whom he makes reference.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether all documents requested by Lord Justice Scott from Ministers or departmental officials have now been provided to the inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, although a number of oral hearings are scheduled to take place in May and the provison of further documents and material to the inquiry will continue.

  EU Rights and Objectives
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Foreign Office in asserting British interests in Europe and defending the British case in conflicts over EU rights and objectives.

  The Prime Minister
  I have every confidence in the ability of the Foreign Office to further British interests in Europe.

  British Manufacturing and Research Company
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister which departments or Government agencies hold papers or records relating to the affairs of the British Manufacturing and Research Company.

  The Prime Minister
  Records of this company are held by Companies House, an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  General Election
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to ensure that a general election will occur if a Prime Minister resigns or is defeated in a party leadership contest.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  EC Commission
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement on 29 March,Official Report, columns 797–98, whether he will publish (a) the text of the oral or written assurances given by the Commission that proposals under the social chapter will not embrace in any way people or organisations in the United Kingdom and (b) the text of any Council of Ministers declaration that it is under a legal and binding obligation to seek agreement on the basis of a minority of at least 23 votes.

  The Prime Minister
  On(a), I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the hon.
  34
  Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 30 March. On (b), the text of the Council decision on qualified majority voting has already been deposited in the House.

TREASURY

  Listed Building Repairs (VAT)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to alter the rate of value added tax on repairs to listed buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  We have no plans to change the present rate of VAT of 17½ per cent. on repairs to listed buildings.

  Bank Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times in 1990, 1991 and 1992 bank auditors notified the Bank of England of suspected fraud and irregularities.

  Mr. Nelson
  The term "suspected fraud and irregularities" is capable of being interpreted in different ways. But on the basis of a reasonable interpretation, the Bank of England advises that the number of notifications in those years was as follows:

  Number

  1990

  2

  1991

  3

  1992

  0

  I cannot, of course, comment on the details of any particular supervisory case as such information is covered by part V of the Banking Act 1987.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the
  person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Nelson
  The following organisations have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment:

  Public Appointments Unit

  Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  Institute of Actuaries

  The Law Society

  The Law Society of Northern Ireland

  The Law Society of Scotland

  Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association

  Securities and Investments Board

  Bank of England

  Investment Management Regulatory Organisation

  Securities and Futures Authority

  Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation

  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  35

  Insurance Brokers Registration Council

  Cabinet Office

  UK Federation of Business and Professional Women

  City Women's Network

  National Federation of Independent Financial Advisers Ltd.

  Life Insurance Association

  Association of British Insurers

  British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association

  IFA Promotion

  Institute of Insurance Brokers

  Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds

  British Bankers Association

  Building Societies Association

  Building Societies Commission

  Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Nelson
  The following list covers each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment detailing(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility; (b) the salary; (c) the term of the appointment; and (d) the person(s) currently holding the post(s):

  Treasury Trove Reviewing Committee:

  (a) Chief Secretary;

  (b) No salary;

  (c) Five years;

  (d) Professor J. D. Evans

  Mr. D. Sellwood

  Mr. J. A. Och

  Mr. P. Finn

  Central Statistical Office Management Board:

  (a) Chancellor of the Exchequer;

  (b) £3,500 per annum;

  (c) Two years;

  (d) Mrs. M. Berg;

  Mr. P. Thornton

  Central Statistical Office Advisory Committee:

  (a) Chancellor of the Exchequer;

  (b) No salary;

  (c) 2 years;

  (d) Mr. D. Wroe

  Mr. D. A. Jones

  Mr. A. Armstrong

  Sir S. Brittan

  Mr. R. Brown

  Mr. J. Calder

  Mr. A. Chanbraine

  Dr. C. Cosgrove

  Mr. L. Cousins

  Mr. S. Jukes

  Mr. M. King

  Prof. D. Lievesley

  Prof. D. Mayes

  Mr. C. Mowl

  Mrs. B. Rosewell

  Dr. A. Sentance

  Dr. J. Whitley

  Mrs. A. Wright

  Royal Mint Management Board:

  (a) Chancellor of the Exchequer;

  (b) £4,500 per annum;

  (c) 3 years;

  (d) Mr. S. Cameron

  Mr. S. Taylor

  Ms G. Burg, CBE

  36
  Royal Mint Advisory Committee:

  (a) Her Majesty the Queen on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recommendation in his capacity as Master of the Mint;

  (b) No salary;

  (c) 7 years;

  (d) HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  Marchioness of Anglesey

  Professor E. Arthur Bell

  Mrs. Philomena Davison Davis

  Sir Hugh Casson

  Dr. Christopher Challis

  Mr. Mark Jones

  Sir John Hale

  Michael Harvey

  Professor Bryan Kneale

  John Porteous

  Dr. Conrad Swan

  National Savings Board:

  (a) Myself;

  (b) No salary;

  (c) 1 year;

  (d) Mr. R. Heape

  Mr. M. St. Giles

  Public Works Loan Board

  (a) Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister who is advised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer;

  (b) No salary;

  (c) 4 years;

  (d) Sir R. Dent, KCVO

  Miss F. M. Cook

  Miss V. J. Di Palma, OBE

  Mr. G. Ross Russell

  Mr. P. Brackfield

  Mr. D. Adams

  Mr. R. A. Chapman

  Mr. A. Morton

  Mr. G. G. Williams

  Mr. R. G. Tettenborn

  Mr. J. E. Scotford, CBE

  Mr. A. Gillespie

  Financial Services Tribunal:

  (a) Treasury appointments agreed by myself;

  (b) Daily rate of £291 for Chairmen and £215 for members;

  (c) 3 years;

  (d) Mr. J. M. Bowers

  Mr. D. Campbell

  Mr. P. E. Heim

  Mr. E. C. Woods

  Mr. A. Gordon

  Mr. J. E. Drummond Young

  Mr. K. A. Blundell

  Mr. W. M. Carson

  Mr. P. G. Green

  Mr. G. C. Grover

  Mr. J. L. Kirkpatrick

  Mr. A. F. Lamb

  Mr. H. G. Littlefair

  Sir James McKinnon

  Mr. A. W. Mallinson

  Mr. W. O'Farrell

  Mr. J. B. Page

  Mr. R. C. Ritchie

  Mr. R. P. Wilkinson

  Mr. G. Willetts

  Mr. P. D. Williams

  Mr. H. Woods

  Building Societies Commissioners:

  (a) Treasury appointments agreed by myself;

  (b) £17,750 per annum;

  (c) Normally 3 years;

  (d) Mr. H. R. C. Walden, CBE

  Mr. F. E. Worsley

  Mr. G. Sunderland

  Mr. N. Fox-Bassett

  Sir J. Birrell

  37
  Friendly Societies Commissioners:

  (a) Treasury appointments agreed by myself;

  (b) £12,700 per annum;

  (c) Normally 3 years;

  (d) Mr. A. Wilson

  Mr. J. A. Geddes

  Mr. P. E. Couse

  Dr. J. Dine

  Value Added Tax Tribunals:

  (a) Paymaster General;

  (b) £141 fee per day;

  (c) 3 years (1 year if over 70);

  (d) Mrs. E. R. Adams Mr. J. Adrian

  Ms Caroline S. De Albuquerque

  Mr. M. H. Allan

  Mr. G. K. Armstrong

  Mr. R. Asbridge

  Mrs. V. Ashcroft

  Mr. R. W. Atkinson

  Dr. Norma R. Ball

  Mr. J. D. D. Bates

  Mr. L. H. Berry

  Mr. R. S. Boddington

  Mr. R. Bridge

  Mr. V. R. V. Brindley

  Mr. A. B. Brown

  Mr. A. E. Brown

  Mr. G. Burnison

  Mrs. B. M. Burrell

  Mr. J. A. Byrne

  Mrs. M. A. T. Calvert

  Mr. F. E. T. Card

  Mr. J. Carew

  Mr. K. Chambers

  Mr. R. Chant

  Mr. A. H. Charlesworth

  Mr. R. E. Cockfield

  Mr. I. Condie

  Mr. B. Coode

  Mr. R. D. Corke

  Mr. A. N. Craven

  Mr. R. L. H. Crawford

  Mr. J. D. Crerar

  Mr. J. S. Cullen

  Mr. J. P. M. Denny

  Miss V. J. Di Palma

  Mr. K. S. Dugdale

  Mr. J. B. Dynes

  Mrs. S. Edmondson

  Mr. M. Farooq

  Mr. H. W. M. Fiske

  Mr. G. Gallon

  Mr. C. B. H. Gill

  Mr. J. M. Gilliat

  Mr. W. Graves

  Mr. R. G. Grice

  Mr. D. P. Harris

  Mr. C. V. Hasted

  Mr. F. Hazledine

  Mr. A. F. Hennessey

  Mr. W. E. Hesketh

  Mr. R. D. Hicks

  Mr. S. Hobson

  Mr. W. C. Hogg

  Mr. F. P. de Montezuma Horsey

  Mr. M. M. Hossain

  Mr. R. M. Ivison

  Ms J. M. Jacob

  Mr. M. James

  Mr. R. L. Jennings

  Mrs. R. S. Johnson

  Mr. I. A. H. Jordan

  Mr. A. Khan

  Mr. J. D. Kippest

  Mr. J. M. Lapthorne

  Mr. P. H. Lawson

  38

  Mr. P. D. Lewis

  Mr. G. J. C. Lockhart

  Miss K. B. Lockhart

  Mr. M. McCloy

  Mr. G. McCulloch

  Mr. E. M. McGahey

  Mrs. J. R. A. McGowan

  Mr. F. Mcllwee

  Mr. T. McKeag

  Mr. H. McMichael

  Mrs. R. J. Mackworth

  Mr. K. C. Manterfield

  Lt. Colonel T. Marsh

  Mr. J. N. Mendelssohn

  Mr. G. Miles

  Mr. H. W. Millar

  Mr. D. V. Mundy

  Mr. L. B. Oilier

  Mr. R. T. Parkinson

  Mrs. R. V. Penn

  Mr. T. M. Petherick

  Mr. N. H. Phillips

  Mr. R. J. Pickerill

  Mr. W. J. Pickup

  Mr. A. W. Potter

  Mrs. G. Pratt

  Mr. J. Pratt

  Mrs. G. Pritchard

  Dr. W. I. Pumphrey

  Mr. S. A. Rae

  Mr. J. B. Rees

  Mr. D. S. Richards

  Mr. S. P Riddell

  Mr. A. J. Ring

  Mrs. N. J. Roberts

  Mr. P. J. Roberts

  Mr. A. L. Robinson

  Mrs. M. J. R. Rogers

  Mr. D. T. S. Rutter

  Mrs. S. Sadeque

  Mrs. L. M. Salisbury

  Mr. G. K. B. Saxby

  Mr. P. J. Seward

  Mr. M. A. Sharp

  Mr. C. R. Shaw

  Mr. S. R. Sibley

  Mr. M. M. Silbert

  Mr. V. Sklar

  Mr. B. B. Smith

  Mr. F. Smith

  Mrs. J. M. Smith

  Mr. R. P. Sodagar

  Mr. J. T. B. Strangward

  Mr. R. S. Suri

  Mr. S. W. Telfer

  Mr. N. F. Townsend

  Mr. M. W. Trace

  Mr. W. R. Turner

  Dame Joan Fleetwood Varley

  Mr. A. W. B. Voge

  Dame Rachel E. Waterhouse

  Mr. H. E. Watkinson

  Mr. M. E. L. Weir

  Mr. R. Welch

  Mr. P. Whitehead

  Mr. L. G. Wilkinson

  Miss D. M. Wilson

  Mr. J. A Wright

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is set out in the table. Figures at(a) and (c) represent the position as at 1 January 1994. Figures for (b) refer to respondents to the

  39
  Department's ethnic monitoring survey. Figures for (c) are available only for those staff who are registered disabled. The Department employs a number of people with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  (a) Women

  (b) Ethnic minorities

  Grade

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent

  1 and 1 A

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  17

  —

  —

  3

  3

  14

  —

  —

  4/5

  8

  11

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  34

  18

  4

  2

  All staff

  639

  43

  148

  10

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Proton cars were purchased by his Departments in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the net receipts for inheritance tax in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Nelson
  The net receipts for inheritance tax in each financial year since 1986–87 are:

  £ million

  1986–87

  995

  1987–88

  1,078

  1988–89

  1,071

  1989–90

  1,232

  1990–91

  1,262

  1991–92

  1,299

  1992–93

  1,211

  11993–94

  1,290

  1 Provisional estimate.

  The figures include receipts from capital transfer tax and estate duty.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 of exempting most family businesses from inheritance tax;

  (2) if he will estimate the value of inheritance tax revenues forgone by the Inland Revenue through exemptions and reliefs for (a) business property, (b) agricultural land, (c) woodlands, (d) works of art and (e) historic houses.

  Mr. Nelson
  The estimated costs of granting relief against inheritance tax for transfers in 1993–94 for the various categories are:

  £ million1

  (a) Business property

  55

  (b) Agricultural land

  70

  (c) Woodlands

  negligible

  1 Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million.

  40
  Separate estimates for relief for family business are not available: such relief is contained within the estimates for business and agricultural reliefs.

  The estimated annual cost of exemptions and reliefs from inheritance tax for heritage property shows significant fluctuations from year to year. Over the past decade the average annual cost has been:

  £ million1

  (d) Works of Art

  80

  (e) Land and Buildings

  10

  1Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of inheritance tax revenues lost by the Exchequer through the use of(a) lifetime gifts and (b) offshore trusts.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested on these transfers is not kept because these transfers fall outside the inheritance tax charge.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of estates in the United Kingdom are liable to inheritance tax.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is estimated that of estates passing on death in the United Kingdom in 1993–94, about 3 per cent. are liable to inheritance tax.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of inheritance tax revenues lost by the Inland Revenue each year through the creation of discretionary trusts made during a donor's lifetime.

  Mr. Nelson
  Lifetime transfers into most discretionary trusts are subject to a charge to inheritance tax at half death rates, and a top-up charge should the donor die within seven years of such transfers. Most discretionary trusts are also subject to a further charge to inheritance tax every 10 years. The purpose of this regime is to ensure that the tax payable on property passing into discretionary trusts is broadly equivalent to the tax payable if it had passed on death. There is no evidence to suggest that, overall, any inheritance tax is lost through the creation of discretionary trusts.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 of raising the relief from inheritance tax from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. for (i) shareholdings of 25 per cent. or less in unquoted companies, (ii) agricultural landlords, (iii) smaller shareholdings in unlisted securities market companies and (iv) controlling shareholdings in quoted companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  Under the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, business assets and farmland which previously qualified for 30 per cent. relief from inheritance tax were granted 50 per cent. relief. Relief at 50 per cent. was also extended to holdings of 25 per cent. or less without control in unlisted securities market companies which previously did not qualify for relief. The combined costs of these changes are about £5 million in a full year. Separate costs for the different categories in terms of receipts in 1992–93 and 1993–94 are all negligible. No change was made to the 50 per cent. relief received by controlling holdings in fully quoted companies.
  41
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total value of all property that changes ownership in one year as a result of the death of the previous owner; and what proportion of this is subject to inheritance tax.

  Mr. Nelson
  For estates passing on death in 1989–90, the most recent year for which figures are available, the total value of property that changed ownership as a result of the death of the previous owner is estimated to be in the region of £25 to £30 billion. Inheritance tax was charged on about £3 billion of this value.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95 of raising the threshold for inheritance tax to £150,000.

  Mr. Nelson
  The estimated costs to the Exchequer of raising the threshold for inheritance tax to £150,000 in 1992–93, measured against an indexed base, are:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  10

  1993–94

  15

  1994–95

  20

  Income Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and percentage of basic rate and higher rate taxpayers in(a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire, (d) Humberside and (e) the United Kingdom for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table provides estimates for 1991–92, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level. Estimates of MIRAS are unreliable at county and regional level and have been excluded from the calculation of tax liability for the counties in the table, and for the United Kingdom for consistency.

  Taxpayers liable at only basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  000s

  Per cent

  000s

  Per cent

  South Yorkshire

  505

  97.2

  14

  2.8

  North Yorkshire

  359

  93.7

  24

  6.3

  West Yorkshire

  862

  95.9

  37

  4.1

  Humberside

  327

  94.8

  18

  5.2

  United Kingdom

  24,800

  93.9

  1,620

  6.1

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the total cost in 1994–95 of tax expenditures on(a) relief for occupational pension schemes, (b) contributions to personal pensions, (c) mortgage interest, (d) contracted-out rebate for occupational schemes and personal pensions, (e) married couple's allowance, (f) capital allowances for income tax and corporation tax and (g) inheritance tax transfers not exceeding £150,000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for 1994–95 are as follows:
  42

  £ million

  Relief for:

  Occupational pension schemes

  17,100

  Contributions to personal pensions (including retirement annuity premia and FSAVCs)

  1,700

  Mortgage interest2

  3,400

  Contracted-out rebate for occupational schemes and personal pensions

  7,400

  Married couple's allowance

  3,500

  Capital allowances for income tax and corporation tax

  114,400

  Inheritance tax nil rate band for transfers not exceeding £150,000

  14,400

  1These figures are particularly tentative and subject to a wide margin of error.

  2This figure is based on the conventional assumption that mortgage interest rates remain at their current levels.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the average family's tax bill of the Budget changes in the married couple's income tax allowance and mortgage interest relief.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A basic rate taxpayer in receipt of the married couple's allowance will pay £86 more in income tax in 1994–95 following its restriction to 20 per cent. Mortgage interest relief does not in general depend on the income of the mortgagor. It is estimated that the average size of mortgages in the United Kingdom will be greater than the qualifying maximum of £30,000. Assuming current levels of mortgage interest rates, the reduction in relief on the mortgage of £30,000 or over will be £115.50 in 1994–95.

  Pension Schemes (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates for 1993–94 and 1996–97 of the cost of tax relief for investment income of(a) occupational pension schemes and (b) personal pension schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A provisional cost of income tax relief, assuming relief at the basic rate of tax, for the investment income of occupational pension schemes is estimated to be about £5.1 billion in 1993–94. The cost for 1996–97 will depend on future levels of investment, rates of return and tax rates. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the cost of exemption for investment income related to retirement annuity contracts and personal pensions.

  Taxpayers (Age)
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers are aged over 64 years; and how many of them pay tax at the higher marginal rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated number of taxpayers aged 65 or over in 1994–95 is about 3 million. Of these, about 150,000 will be liable at the higher rate.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government which have been introduced by his Department since 1990.
  43
  Mr. Dorrell
  My Departments have not introduced any Acts of Parliament since 1990 which are specific to local government. They have, however, introduced Acts containing measures that have been general in their application and will consequently have affected local government in common with other organisations.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the statutory, professional, self-regulatory, trade associations and other organisations which are recognised as regulatory bodies under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Nelson
  The following are recognised by the Securities and Investments Board under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Self-regulating Organisations (SROs):

  Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association (FIMBRA)

  Investment Management Regulatory Organisation (IMRO)

  Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation (LAUTRO)

  The Securities and Futures Authority (SFA)

  Recognised Professional Bodies:

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants (ACCA) Institute of Actuaries

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland

  Insurance Brokers' Registration Council (IBRC)

  Law Society

  Law Society of Northern Ireland

  Law Society of Scotland

  Recognised UK Investment Exchanges:

  International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Ltd

  London International Financial Futures Exchange (LIFFE)

  London Metal Exchange (LME)

  London Commodity Exchange (LCE)

  International Petroleum Exchange (IPE)

  OMLX London Securities and Derivatives Exchange (OMLX)

  Recognised Clearing Houses:

  London Clearing House (LCH)

  The following recognised overseas investment exchanges are recognised by the Treasury:

  Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME)

  Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT)

  National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ)

  New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)

  Sydney Futures Exchange (SFE)

  Mercado de Futuros Financieros Sociedad Rectora de Productos Financieros Derivados de Renta Fija (MEFF RF)

  Mercados de Futuros Financieros Sociedad Rectora de Productos Financieros Derivados de Renta Variable (MEFF RV)

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent fines imposed by regulatory bodies created by the Financial Services Act 1986 are deductible for tax; and what representations he has received on this point.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The general rule when calculating trading profits for tax purposes is that revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade is an allowable deduction. Expenditure incurred on a fine imposed as a result of a trader committing an infraction would not be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade.

  No representations have been received on this point.

  National Savings
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what restrictions apply to the use of Post Office National Savings accounts by people who cannot sign their names due to mental impairment; and what arrangements may be made for such people living in local authority care to have access to their savings in such accounts.

  Mr. Nelson
  National Savings ordinary and investment accounts can be opened for mentally disordered persons but only where a receiver has been appointed by the Court of Protection. The receiver will have full control over the management of the account.

  Where an account has been opened and the despositor subsequently becomes mentally disordered, National Savings will describe to the applicant the Court of Protection facility but explain that where the balance in the account is £3,000 or less the director of savings has discretion to allow withdrawals from the account where it is considered in the patient's interest and the payment is being made to a proper person.

  In cases where the account balance is greater than £3,000 the applicant will be referred to the Court of Protection but the director of savings will offer the facility of discretionary payments to meet immediate needs until a Court of Protection order is issued.

  Where there is any doubt in a particular case the matter can be raised with the Public Trust Office. The overriding consideration must be the interests of the patient.

  Derivatives and Swaps
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax revenues obtained from the derivatives and swaps markets in the United Kingdom; how those revenues are obtained; and whether he has the taxation of such markets under review.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not possible to attribute amounts of tax to specific types of income or gain because tax is charged on each business's total profits, including income and capital gains.

  Proposals to reform the tax treatment of financial instruments used by companies for managing interest rate and currency risk were announced in the Budget in November and are included in the present Finance Bill. These proposals will replace the current complex rules with a simple and coherent regime for taxing the profits and losses associated with these instruments.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to review the need for regulation of markets in derivatives and swaps; and what steps he has taken to discuss these issues with the Government of the United States of America or with bank and securities regulators both in Britain and the United States of America.

  Mr. Nelson
  Regulation of markets in derivatives and of institutions involved in derivatives trading in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board and other bodies recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986, and of the Bank of England and the Building Societies Commission. Representatives of the United Kingdom authorities regularly meet and discuss derivatives trading with their counterparts from other countries, including the United States, in fora such as
  45
  the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, as well as on a bilateral basis as appropriate. In addition, the Securities and Investments Board recently agreed, with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a coordinated approach to the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what computer systems his Department have brought in, for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Nelson
  At the end of financial year 1991–92 the Treasury bought a building and asset management system by Ground Modelling Systems for £87,000. First-year maintenance and installation were included in this price. Maintenance in 1993–94 cost £10,000. The system is operational and usage is expanding as more classes of data are entered into it.

  In 1992 the Treasury introduced a library system by Dynix. The capital cost of the system was £88,000; 80 per cent. was paid in 1991–92, and 20 per cent. upon completion in early 1992–93. Maintenance costs of the system were £4,000 in 1992–93 and £10,000 in 1993–94. The system is still fully operational and in use.

  At the end of the financial year 1993–94 the Treasury invested £50,000 in a DIP—document image processing —pilot project. This system, which required a mixture of purchasing, leasing and utilising existing assets, is operational and is being used to assess the potential uses of DIP technology for the Department.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many inspectors were employed on corporation tax technical review in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Excluding inspectors employed in specialist offices, the table sets out the total resource input into corporation tax technical review by inspectors working in the Inland Revenue's network of local offices for each of the years since 1991–92:

  Man years

  1991–92

  745

  1992–93

  780

  1993–94

  749

  The final figure for the year 1993–94 is not yet available. The figure quoted is based on resource usage for the nine months to January 1994 annualised. The final figure for the year is likely to be higher because the period from January to April tends to be a period when comparatively little annual leave is taken and more time is available for technical review.

  Credit for Tax Sparing
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of revenue forgone through the granting of matching credit for tax sparing for the latest year available.
  46
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

  Travellers Charter
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Her Majesty's Customs and Excise travellers charter cost to(a) print and (b) distribute; and what analysis he has made of the value for money of publishing this charter.

  Sir John Cope
  The total cost of designing and printing the charter has been some £60,000. Commercial distribution has cost some £3,000, but internal distribution costs cannot be calculated without disproportionate expense.

  The travellers charter sets standards of service to be provided and allows Customs to monitor and improve performance against those standards. The value of the charter cannot be measured in monetary terms. However, I consider it to make a worth while and effective contribution to our efforts to improve the standard of public services.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many collection staff were working for the Inland Revenue in each year since 1979, including 1993; and how many were working in the areas of(a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax, (d) PAYE and (e) national insurance contributions in each year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures relating to the number of staff employed by the Inland Revenue are compiled on a financial year basis and the most recent year for which information is available is 1992–93.

  Excluding staff employed on central administration, the table sets out the total numbers of Inland Revenue staff engaged on the collection of tax within the Department's accounts offices, local office network, and enforcement offices for each year from 1978–79 to 1992–93 inclusive and the numbers working in the areas of (a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax, and (d) PAYE in each year. Under (d) the figures include staff used in collecting PAYE from employers and a relatively small number of schedule E tax assessments. As resources usage on national insurance contribution work is incidental to mainstream tax collection it is not separately recorded.

  Year

  Total

  Capital gains tax

  Schedule D tax

  Corporation tax

  PAYE

  1978–79

  11,041

  135

  5,873

  560

  4,473

  1979–80

  10,648

  148

  5,701

  584

  4,215

  1980–81

  10,222

  143

  5,529

  597

  3,953

  1981–82

  10,124

  126

  5,747

  409

  3,842

  1982–83

  10,221

  116

  5,673

  390

  4,042

  1983–84

  10,171

  113

  5,570

  394

  4,094

  1984–85

  9,339

  92

  4,674

  557

  4,016

  1985–86

  8,443

  92

  4,596

  559

  3,196

  1986–87

  7,989

  85

  4,472

  530

  2,902

  1987–88

  7,795

  105

  4,250

  538

  2,902

  1988–89

  7,866

  121

  4,243

  571

  2,931

  1989–90

  7,879

  92

  4,243

  570

  2,974

  1990–91

  7,846

  79

  4,410

  549

  2,808

  1991–92

  8,187

  70

  4,376

  532

  3,209

  1992–93

  8,410

  69

  4,730

  492

  3,119

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]: I regret that information going back beyond 1991 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The table gives the number and value of consultancy contracts awarded by HM Treasury by financial year from 1991–92 to date. Some information is only available from August 1991. In addition, the Department has also incurred expenditure on professional fees in connection with the privatisation programme. These are shown separately.

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Staff in post

  Of Which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  part-time

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1a

  3

  —

  3

  —

  2

  6

  —

  6

  —

  Chief Accountancy Adviser

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  21

  3

  23

  11

  4

  3

  —

  3

  —

  5

  59

  9

  67

  11

  6

  23

  —

  23

  —

  7

  157

  37

  184

  210

  Senior Executive Officer

  61

  24

  77

  18

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Librarian

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  8

  5

  13

  —

  Senior Economic Assistant

  24

  3

  27

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  81

  41

  121

  11

  Librarian

  —

  4

  4

  —

  Administrative Trainee

  9

  3

  12

  —

  Economic Assistant

  12

  4

  16

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  1

  4

  —

  Information Officer

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Graduate Trainee

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Executive Officer

  108

  55

  157

  36

  Assistant Librarian

  3

  2

  5

  —

  Administrative Officer

  102

  106

  192

  416

  Administrative Assistant

  37

  57

  89

  15

  Chief Typing Manager

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  16

  15

  11

  Typing Manager

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Personal Secretary

  2

  109

  97

  114

  Typist

  4

  45

  38

  111

  Support Manager Band 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Support Manager Band 2

  5

  2

  7

  —

  Support Manager Band 3

  5

  2

  7

  —

  Support Grade Band 1

  38

  15

  53

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  77

  36

  113

  —

  1 Female.

  2 Eight female, two male.

  3 Five female, one male.

  4 15 female, one male.

  Customs and Excise

  Of Which

  Grade

  male

  Female

  Fulltime

  Part-time

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  6

  1

  7

  —

  48

  Consultancy Contracts

  Privatisation Contracts

  Year

  Number of contracts

  Value (excluding VAT)(£)

  Number of contracts

  Value (excluding VAT)(£)

  1991–92

  14

  1258,010

  10

  8,860,632

  1992–93

  92

  1,028,812

  14

  1,401,593

  21993–94

  70

  1,404,476

  12

  4,592,295

  1 August to March.

  2 To date.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each civil service grade in his Departments the number of(a) male and (b) female, (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The information requested is set out in the tables for each of the Chancellor's Departments.
  49

  Of Which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  59

  3

  62

  —

  Assistant Solicitor

  13

  3

  16

  —

  6

  89

  2

  91

  —

  6/Legal

  18

  10

  26

  12

  6/Scientific Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  7

  381

  30

  410

  11

  7/Legal

  26

  16

  41

  11

  Statistician

  —

  1

  1

  —

  7/Scientific Officer

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Economic Adviser

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,434

  155

  1,582

  17

  Senior Economic Assistant

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Scientific Officer

  2

  2

  4

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Senior Legal Assistant

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  4,088

  1,315

  5,235

  2—

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  7

  4

  11

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  4

  2

  6

  —

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Higher Telecom Technical Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Librarian

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Information Officer

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Legal Officer

  6

  6

  12

  —

  Sandwich Course Student

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Executive Officer

  5,562

  3,341

  8,494

  3—

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Economic Assistant

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  9

  10

  —

  Scientific Officer

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Photographer

  4

  —

  4

  —

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  3

  5

  8

  —

  Legal Trainee

  2

  1

  3

  —

  Administrative Trainee

  2

  1

  3

  —

  Professional and Technical Officer

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Typing Manager

  —

  23

  23

  —

  Support Manager 2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Support Manager 3

  3

  7

  10

  —

  Personal Secretary

  —

  110

  106

  4

  Trainee Typist

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Typist

  3

  420

  315

  1108

  Administrative Officer

  2,412

  3,223

  5,192

  4—

  Administrative Officer Data Processor

  14

  34

  46

  12

  Support Grade Band 1

  80

  76

  149

  5—

  Administrative Assistant

  1,175

  1,979

  2,885

  6—

  Administrative Assistant Data Processor

  20

  144

  133

  131

  Support Grade Band 2

  378

  246

  503

  7—

  Support Grade 2

  1

  9

  —

  8—

  1 Female.

  2 155 (Female), 13 (Male).

  3 388 (Female), 21 (Male).

  4 432 (Female), 11 (Male).

  5 9 (Female), 1 (Male).

  6 245 (Female), 24 (Male).

  7 105 (Female), 16 (Male).

  8 9 (Female), 1 (Male).

  Government Actuary's Department

  Staff in post

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Government Actuary

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Directing Actuary

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Chief Actuary

  7

  —

  7

  —

  Actuary

  20

  3

  18

  15

  Trainee Actuary

  11

  5

  16

  —

  Grade 6

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 7

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  4

  —

  4

  —

  Executive Officer

  2

  2

  4

  —

  Administrative Officer

  2

  4

  5

  21

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  —

  1

  —

  50 51

  Staff in post

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Personal Secretary

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Typist

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1 Four male, 1 female.

  2 Female.

  Inland Revenue

  Of which

  Civil Service grade

  Equivalent Inland Revenue pay grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  17

  —

  17

  —

  4

  Band A1

  32

  1

  33

  —

  5

  Band A2

  200

  15

  213

  12

  6

  Band B1

  741

  75

  809

  27

  7

  Band B2

  1,503

  409

  1,844

  368

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  Band B3

  265

  135

  391

  19

  Senior Executive Officer

  Band C1

  1,534

  265

  1,763

  436

  Higher Executive Officer

  Band C2

  4,167

  2,082

  5,956

  5293

  Executive Officer

  Band D

  6,363

  7,845

  12,426

  61,782

  Administrative Officer

  Band El

  5,366

  15,054

  16,780

  73,640

  Administrative Assistant/Typist

  Band E2

  4,416

  13,130

  14,188

  83,358

  1 Female.

  2 One male, six female.

  3 Eight male, 60 female.

  4 Four male, 32 female.

  5 23 male, 270 female.

  6 43 male, 1,739 female.

  7 73 male, 3,567 female.

  8 88 male, 3,270 female.

  Central Statistical Office

  Staff in post

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1A

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  3

  —

  3

  —

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  17

  4

  21

  —

  6

  8

  —

  8

  —

  7

  62

  16

  72

  16

  Senior Executive Officer

  31

  16

  47

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  16

  10

  25

  21

  Assistant Statistician

  8

  6

  14

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  103

  72

  157

  318

  Executive Officer

  175

  179

  327

  427

  Administrative Officer

  162

  316

  418

  560

  Administrative Assistant

  31

  66

  87

  610

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Personal Secretary

  —

  28

  25

  63

  Other

  17

  37

  47

  67

  1 Two male, four female.

  2 Male.

  3 Two male, 16 female.

  4 Two male, 25 female.

  5 1 male, 59 female.

  6 Female.

  National investment and loans office

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  5

  1

  —

  1

  —

  7

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  2

  —

  52 53

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Higher Executive Officer

  5

  1

  6

  —

  Executive Officer

  8

  4

  12

  —

  Administrative Officer

  2

  6

  8

  —

  Administrative Assistant

  —

  2

  1

  11

  Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Typist

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1 Female.

  Registry of friendly societies

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  3

  —

  3

  —

  5

  7

  —

  6

  11

  6

  5

  1

  6

  —

  7

  13

  8

  21

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  14

  3

  17

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  18

  9

  27

  —

  Executive Officer

  21

  16

  34

  23

  Administrative Officer

  11

  21

  30

  —

  Administrative Assistant

  6

  5

  11

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Personal Secretary

  —

  8

  8

  —

  Specialist Typist

  —

  4

  4

  —

  Support Manager 3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  11

  —

  11

  —

  1 Male.

  2 One male, two female.

  3 Female.

  Office of the Paymaster General

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full time

  Part time

  5

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  3

  —

  3

  —

  7

  7

  2

  9

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  23

  6

  29

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  52

  47

  91

  18

  Executive Officer

  57

  103

  139

  221

  Administrative Officer

  77

  298

  279

  396

  Administrative Assistant

  22

  142

  93

  471

  Typing Manager

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Typist

  —

  9

  3

  56

  PS

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Support Manager 3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 1

  2

  9

  8

  53

  Support Grade Band 2

  10

  13

  17

  56

  11 Male, 7 Female

  22 Male, 19 Female

  34 Male, 92 Female

  44 I Male, 70 Female

  5Female

  Department for National Savings

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full time

  Part time

  3

  2

  —

  2

  —

  5

  5

  1

  5

  11

  6

  8

  —

  8

  —

  7

  38

  3

  41

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  101

  17

  118

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  200

  122

  319

  23

  54

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Executive Officer

  375

  478

  803

  350

  Administrative Officer

  604

  2,097

  2,206

  4495

  Administrative Assistant

  648

  1,626

  1,894

  5380

  Other

  126

  60

  —

  —

  1Female.

  21 Male, 2 Female.

  31 Male, 49 Female.

  410 Male, 485 Female.

  58 Male, 372 Female.

  55

  Royal Mint

  Of which

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade 3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Grade 6

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Grade 7

  11

  —

  11

  —

  Senior Executive Officer (equivalent)

  11

  3

  14

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  14

  5

  19

  —

  Curator Grade F

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Executive Officer

  26

  20

  46

  13

  Administrative Officer

  31

  56

  87

  111

  Administrative Assistant

  —

  11

  11

  12

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Personal Secretary

  —

  5

  5

  —

  Typing Manager

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Typists

  —

  8

  8

  —

  Higher Photographic Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Photographic Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Laboratory Assistant

  —

  1

  —

  11

  Senior Messenger

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Messenger

  1

  3

  4

  13

  Car Drivers

  2

  1

  3

  —

  Telephonists

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Cleaners

  —

  2

  2

  15

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer (equivalent)

  9

  —

  9

  —

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  21

  —

  21

  —

  Professional and Technical Officer

  72

  2

  74

  —

  Technical Grade 1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Process and General Supervisory Grade D

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Senior Scientific Officer

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  2

  —

  2

  11

  Scientific Officer

  15

  1

  16

  —

  Engraver I

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Trainee Engraver

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Engraver II

  5

  —

  5

  —

  1 Female

  Accommodation (Tax)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the amount of the deduction or the market rental value of the accommodation is used to calculate the tax due when assessing the value for tax purposes of accommodation provided as part of salary.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: Employees who choose to spend part of the wages to which they are entitled on accommodation from their employer remain taxable on their full wages.

  Employees who have living accommodation provided by reason of their employment are liable to tax on the value of the accommodation, subject to certain statutory exemptions. The value of the accommodation for tax purposes is the annual value of the property or the rent paid for it if that is greater. Annual value is defined in the same way as the annual value which was formerly used for rating purposes and the figures taken for income tax purposes is usually the same as the gross value last used for rating purposes. There is an additional charge for certain properties which cost more than £75,000.

  The basis of valuation of living accommodation provided by reason of an employment is currently being reviewed to find a practical replacement for figures from rating lists.

  Inflation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current annual rate of inflation; and in which year inflation was last lower.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: In February the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments was 2.8 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Other than in November and December 1993 the inflation rate was last lower in January 1968, when it was 2.6 per cent.

  International Monetary Fund (Russia)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the full terms of the latest agreement between the International Monetary Fund and Russia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: A joint communiqué was issued on 22 March by the managing director of the IMF and the Russian Prime Minister announcing that agreement would soon be reached on the terms for the disbursement of the second tranche of the systemic transformation facility—$1.5 billion. Those terms were to be outlined in a Russian Government memorandum of economic policy to be presented to the IMF. As yet, that memorandum has not been finalised.

  I very much welcome the progress made towards agreement between the Russian Government and the IMF.

  Income Statistics
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage change in real disposable income between February 1974 and May 1979; and what it has been since May 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: Figures for real personal disposable income are available only quarterly. The total increase in RPDI between the first quarter of 1974 and the second quarter of 1979 was nearly 11 per cent. The total increase in RPDI between the second quarter of 1979 and the fourth quarter of 1993 was 42 per cent.

  Forward Catering
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what price was paid for Forward Catering; and what provision was made in the sale agreement for financial responsibility for redundancies.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 15 February, column 703. The sale agreement provided for the purchaser to indemnify the Treasury from all costs arising from the termination of employment of employees after the transfer date.

  Bank Rate
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current bank rate of interest; and in which year it was last lower.
  Mr. Nelson[holding answer 31 March 1994]: Base rates now stand at 5¼ per cent. Base rates have not been lower since 1972.

  EU Growth Rate
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth rate in each EU country in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the estimated growth rates for 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: Estimates for 1993 are available in table 2 of the annual economic report of the European Commission. The most recent country-by-country Commission forecasts for 1994 were published in table 10 of "European Economy", edition No. 55. These figures show that the United Kingdom had the fastest growth rate in the Community in 1993 and is expected to grow faster than any other major EC country in 1994.

EMPLOYMENT

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what major building projects valued at over £1 million are being or have been wholly or partly financed since 1989 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None so far as the Department, the Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory,58
  Conciliation and Arbitration Service are concerned. In the case of the Employment Service agency, responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. A. G. Johnson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 12 April 1994:
  The Minister of State for Employment has asked me to reply to your question about major building projects valued at over £1m which are being, or have been, wholly or partly financed by the Employment Service since 1989 at Doncaster, Barnsley, Rotherham and Wakefield. I am replying in the Chief Executive's absence.
  The Employment Service (ES) has commissioned three projects which meet the criteria set out in your question. The details are:
  a. Doncaster—No projects.
  b. Barnsley—A private developer built the ES Jobcentre to our specification and it was subsequently rented. ES expenditure on fitting out the building was £423,000. The total value of the building is estimated at £2.25 million. The building was occupied on 5 October 1992.
  c. Rotherham—A private developer constructed a building housing three ES Jobcentres to our specification and it was subsequently purchased. The total cost of the project was £2,706,000 wholly funded by the ES. The building was occupied on 26 June 1992.
  d. Wakefield—A private developer built the ES Jobcentre to our specification and it was subsequently rented. ES expenditure on fitting out the building was £440,000. The total value of the building is estimated at £2.25 million. The building was occupied on 19 July 1993.
  I hope this is helpful

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in each region were in receipt of unemployment benefit only(a) in total and (b) who had been unemployed for more than six months at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available, by region, on the numbers of people claiming unemployment benefit only.

  The available information relates to the numbers of people claiming all unemployment-related benefits—that is, unemployment benefit, income support and national insurance credits. Unadjusted information by duration for the months of January, April, July and October can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total money spent, (b) the percentage of that money allocated according to decisions made by Ministers on competitive bids and (c) the percentage of that money allocated according to some statistical measure of need in the last available operational year of (i) Employment Service programme development fund, (ii) education business partnerships, (iii) teacher placement scheme, (iv) compacts, (v) business start-up scheme, (vi) local initiative fund and (vii) TEC Challenge.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Money spent on these programmes in the last available operational year—1992–93—was:
  59

  £ million

  (i) Programme Development Fund

  4.710

  (ii) Education Business Partnerships

  1.980

  (iii) Teacher Placement Scheme

  3.413

  (iv) Compacts

  5.356

  (v) Business Start-up Scheme

  62.018

  (vi) Local Initiative Fund

  49.700

  Expenditure for (i) was for Great Britain; expenditure for (ii) to (iv) was for England. Funding for TEC Challenge was not available in the 1992–93 operational year.

  Budgets for the programme development fund were allocated with the regional level of long-term unemployment as a key consideration.

  Budgets for TEC challenge were allocated in 1993–94 on the basis of competitive bids.

  Budgets for the remaining programmes were allocated on the basis of proposals by training and enterprise councils in their business plans, taking into account commitments arising from previously approved programmes, performance against previous plans, for the business start-up scheme and the local initiative fund, the size of working population in different areas, and for the teacher placement service, the number of teachers.

  Productivity Rewards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 433, concerning rewards for productivity, to what extent the statistical series referred to have changed since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following changes in classification have taken place to the new earnings survey since 1979:

  1983
  Employees were classified by industry according to the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification, SIC 1980. The 1982 survey was classified by both the SIC, 1968, and SIC, 1980, versions and earlier surveys were classified by SIC, 1968;

  1984
  Employees were classified as to whether they were paid adult or non-adult rates. In previous surveys employees were classified as being adults if they were males aged 21 or over or females aged 18 or over. The 1983 survey was classified on both bases in 1983.

  1991
  The occupations of employees were coded using the Standard Occupational Classification, SOC. Previously classification has been to the list of Key Occupations for Statistical Purposes, KOS. The survey was classified on both bases in 1990. Note: employees in the survey are classified as either manual or non-manual by their occupation.

  Employees are classified to either the public or private sector in the following way: (a) those reported to be affected by a major collective agreement: to the sector in which the agreement mainly operates; (b) other employees: to the public sector—central Government, local government or public corporations—or to the private sector in accordance with the industrial classification of the firm.

  During the period mentioned in the question there were compositional changes to these sectors due to the movement of businesses from the public to the private sector.
  60
  There have been no substantive changes in the method of calculating the statistical series referred to, although the output series used in the calculation of productivity in manufacturing have been revised slightly in 1980 and 1992 to reflect revised SIC definitions of manufacturing industry.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of unfilled vacancies in Thorne and Doncaster jobcentres from 8 January.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In February 1994 the number of unfilled vacancies in Thorne and Doncaster Jobcentres were 66 and 426 respectively.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people apply for each vacancy advertised in United Kingdom jobcentres.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available.

  Unemployment (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the Doncaster area have been unemployed for more than two years; and what percentage of the unemployed in Doncaster this represents.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the Doncaster travel-to-work area the number of people who had been claimant unemployed for over two years in January 1994 was 3,436 or 22.3 per cent. of the total number of unemployed claimants in the area. These figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were placed into employment by jobcentres in the Doncaster area in each month since April 1992; and what percentage of the unemployed in the Doncaster area this represents.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 17 March 1994]: I regret that due to a printing error, part of my original reply of 17 March 1994, Official Report, column 809, related to census of employment figures rather than the claimant unemployment figures for the Doncaster area. The correct reply follows:

  Information on monthly jobcentre placings and monthly claimant unemployment levels can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. However, it is not meaningful to compare flow figures—placings—with stock figures—unemployment levels.

  Moreover, jobcentre placements represent only a quarter of all placings made nationally, and this proportion is likely to vary between different regions, different skills and different occupations. Furthermore, within any one area, there is not necessarily a strong match between the skills of the unemployed and the nature of the vacancies available.

  During 1993, jobcentres in the Doncaster area placed more than 400 people into employment each month.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since 1990.
  61
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One aspect of employment legislation since 1990 has been identified as having an effect on local government.

  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, sections 45 and 46, amend the Employment and Training Act 1973 on the provision of the Careers Service.

  May Day Holiday
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) with what organisation he consulted in his 1993 discussions on the future of the May day holiday;

  (2) how may individuals or organisation not otherwise consulted wrote to him on the future of the May day holiday during his 1993 consideration of this issue.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department consulted a wide range of organisations. These included organisations in the manufacturing and service industries, tourism and education sectors.

  A total of 1,557 copies of the consultation document were issued, 1,407 to organisations and 150 to individuals. Some 552 organisations and 433 individuals wrote to the Department in response to the consultation.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the staffing costs of his 1993 consultation on the future of the May day holiday.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 433, concerning rewards for productivity, whether he will publish in Economic Trends and its annual supplement figures matching those in table 23 showing as in index the increase in real wages of manual and non-manual workers broken down as between the public sector, private sector services and private sector manufacturing.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Increases in real wages can be calculated by taking the average earnings index and adjusting it to take account of the retail prices index, both of which are published in Economic Trends.

  Monthly data on average earnings are not available for manual and non-manual workers in the public sector, private sector services and private sector manufacturing.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Roads
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed with the Republic of Ireland the improvement of the road network within the Republic to facilitate access to the ports of Belfast and Lame in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There are regular exchanges at official level with the Republic of Ireland about cross-border road issues. There have been no recent discussions at ministerial level.

  Transport Links
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed transport links with(a) the Scottish Office and (b) the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement about transport communications from Northern Ireland to both Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There are frequent contacts at official level with the Scottish Office and the Republic of Ireland authorities about transport links with Scotland and the Republic of Ireland respectively. The intergovernmental conference last discussed north-south transport issues on 27 April 1992. Transport links with Scotland have not involved recent ministerial contact.

  Income Support
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent active involvement of over 12 hours per week during normal working hours in the organisation and running of a political party is taken as sufficient ground for refusing an unemployed claimant income support on the basis that the person is not actively seeking work or available for work.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Ken Maginnis, dated 30 March 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the effect which active involvement in the work of a political party has on an unemployed person's entitlement to Income Support.
  Firstly, I should explain that entitlement to Income Support depends on the facts surrounding the individual's circumstances, decisions on which are taken by Adjudication Officers who are independent of the Department of Health and Social Services.
  Active involvement of over 12 hours a week in the organisation and running of a political party is not of itself sufficient grounds for refusing benefit. Much would depend on the individual's particular circumstances as to whether he or she fully satisfied the availability and actively seeking work conditions.
  I hope this explains the position for you.

  Society of Local Authorities
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions, in the past two years, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) has met the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Once. Following a recent invitation from the chairman of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, I met the society for a wide-ranging discussion on local government issues.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many budget-holding practices there are in Northern Ireland; and what percentage this is of the total number of GP practices.
  63
  Mr. Ancram
  There are 43 GP fundholding groups in Northern Ireland, comprising 61 GP practices. This represents 17 per cent. of the total number of practices.

  Company Records
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the company records of SRC Composites Ltd. and Camira Technical Corporation Ltd. are available in Companies House, Belfast.

  Mr. Tim Smith:
  These company records are available at the Registry of Companies, Department of Economic Development, IDB house, 64 Chichester street, Belfast, BT1 4JX.

  Emergency Housing
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensures that the Housing Executive continues to make special provision in providing houses in an emergency in Northern Ireland, following consultation on the access to local authority and housing association tenancies paper.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Housing Executive ensure that, in carrying out its responsibilities, priority is given to those in greatest housing need. The consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies" describes the Government's proposals for ensuring fairer access to local authority and housing association tenancies in England. The views of interested parties in Northern Ireland are being sought prior to considering whether changes are needed to the arrangements operating in Northern Ireland.

  Health Boards (Rationalisation)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effects on the health care of the population of Northern Ireland of the rationalisation plans introduced by each of the health boards.

  Mr. Ancram
  I am not aware of the rationalisation plans referred to. Health and social services boards are expected to produce area strategies every three years which set out how they intend to achieve the objectives set in the Government's regional strategy, the current edition of which covers the period 1992 to 1997. As part of the process of implementing the regional strategy, which is designed to improve the health and social well-being of the population of Northern Ireland, boards are required to assess health and social care needs; secure the provision of a range of services; and monitor outcomes. I am glad to say that, as a result, the health care of the people of Northern Ireland continues to improve, with, for example, more people than ever being treated in hospital, fewer people waiting for treatment, infant mortality rates at an all-time low and fewer people dying prematurely from heart disease or strokes.

  Rents
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effect the increase in rents of the Northern Ireland Executive houses has had on the total amount of housing benefit paid to tenants in Northern Ireland for each of the years 1992, 1993 and 1994.
  64
  Mr. Tim Smith
  The total amount of housing benefit paid to Housing Executive tenants was £130.8 million in 1991–92, £144.1 million in 1992–93 and is projected to be £156.9 million in 1993–94. The increases in Housing Executive rents in those years were 8 per cent, 9.5 per cent. and 7.75 per cent. respectively. A number of factors affect the total amount of housing benefit paid to Housing Executive tenants and it is not feasible to isolate the impact of rent increases.

  Social Security
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy in giving social security to those who are suspected of supporting terrorism.

  Mr. Ancram
  All claims for social security benefits are treated strictly in accordance with the law and awards where there is a valid entitlement.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review social security benefits to Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Tom Hartley.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Lady Olga Maitland, dated 7 April 1994:
  I have been been asked to reply to your recent question on what plans there are to review social security benefits to Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Tom Hartley.
  I should first explain that information on a person's entitlement to social security benefits, including whether or not they are claiming or getting benefit, is confidential. I am therefore unable to comment on individual cases. However, I can assure you that all claims to benefit are assessed and regularly reviewed by independent adjudication officers, strictly in accordance with social security law and payment is made only where there is a valid entitlement.
  I hope this letter sets out the position for you.

  Irish-medium Education
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the review into Irish-medium education will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Officials have had a number of discussions with Irish language interests over the last year on all aspects of provision for Irish-medium education. I will be carefully considering the issues raised, with a view to reaching decisions before the end of the present school year.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of rented accommodation in Northern Ireland is provided by the private sector(a) in urban areas and (b) in rural areas.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  A total of 3.59 per cent. of total occupied housing stock in Northern Ireland is privately rented. A breakdown of this figure for urban and rural areas is not available.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the number of hospital beds available for use in Northern Ireland for each of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Ancram
  The average number of available beds in Northern Ireland is shown in the table:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Available beds in wards open overnight

  13,488

  12,600

  11,712

  Available beds in dedicated day case wards

  88

  87

  141

  Total available beds

  13,576

  12,687

  11,853

  Ill Health
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of initiatives taken by his Department to prevent ill health in the communities in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The regional strategy for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, published in November 1991, emphasises health promotion and disease prevention as the key to health gain. It sets a series of objectives and targets for a number of key areas and risk factors aimed at securing lasting improvements in the health and well-being of the population of Northern Ireland.

  Firearm Certificates
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total sum received in Northern Ireland for(a) firearm certificates and (b) shotgun certificates during 1993 or the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In Northern Ireland, the possession of any firearm, including a shotgun, requires a firearm certificate. In 1993, the total sum received for firearm certificates was £1,118,484.

  It would not be possible to provide a separate figure for the cost of those firearm certificates relating solely to shotguns without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Roads
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed with the Scottish Office the road networks within Scotland leading to the Port of Stranraer and facilitating access to the ports of Belfast and Larne in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There have over the years been several discussions with the Scottish Office at official level about the road networks in Scotland which provide access to the Scottish ports serving Northern Ireland. There has been no recent discussion at ministerial level.

WALES

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate how much his Department spends in each parliamentary constituency in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure by the Welsh Office is not held on this basis.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations led him to collect centrally information on hospital closures.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend needs to satisfy himself that public consultation on hospital closures takes place in accordance with current guidelines. To monitor this, health authorities in Wales are providing information on planned hospital closures and major service changes. All hospital closures objected to by community health councils are referred to my right hon. Friend for decision.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that PPG 13 applies to Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Planning policy guidance note 13, "Highways Considerations in Development Control", remains extant in Wales. It is under review and my right hon. Friend will be issuing revised guidance for Wales.

  Engagements
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many engagements he has fulfilled in Wales since he became Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since I have been Secretary of State for Wales I have attended 222 events in Wales to date, which include official and political engagements.

  Staff Commission
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for the establishment of the shadow staff commission for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Local Government (Wales) Bill currently before Parliament provides for the creation of a Staff Commission to advise on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of staff and other personnel implications of local government reorganisation in Wales.

  The Staff Commission has been set up in shadow form today. The members are:

  Sir Richard Lloyd Jones (Chairman)

  Peter Bennett

  Michael Roger Towers

  Eleri Wynne Jones

  Kevin Crowley

  The commission will be funded by grant-in-aid payments. Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the tourism, roads and transport, housing, other environmental services, including civil defence, arts and libraries and

  67
  health and personal social services, Wales vote—class XV, vote 5. Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £150,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  M4 (Congestion)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce traffic management proposals to deal with congestion at the Tredegar Park interchange on the M4.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  An improvement scheme, jointly funded with Gwent county council, is programmed to commence in September this year, with completion by February 1995.

  Rents
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total sum of rents referred to the rent registration service for the last year for which figures are available and the total sum of rents determined as reasonable for housing benefit subsidy for the same period.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total sum of rents referred in 1992–93 was £113.8 million. The total sum determined as reasonable for housing benefit subsidy was £98.9 million.

  School Closures
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schools in each education authority which have been considered for closure under the Education Act 1933.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1 January 1994, local education authorities have published proposals under the Education Act 1980 to close the following schools:

  Tynyfelin Primary (Clwyd)

  Blaenau Primary (Dyfed)

  Llanddeusant Primary (Dyfed)

  Mynachlogddu Primary (Dyfed)

  St. Felix RC Primary (Gwent)

  Maendy Primary (South Glamorgan)

  Careers Service
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his plans for the implementation of the new arrangements for the delivery of the careers service in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am publishing today a draft prospectus setting out the suggested approach to be taken in the provision of the careers service in Wales from April 1995. This is to inform those who may wish to provide the service about my intention to invite bids through open competitive tendering.

  A formal invitation to interested organisations to submit bids for the provision of the careers service will be issued shortly.

  Foresty Commission Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county, hectarage and location the Forestry Commission land sold in Wales since 1 July 1993 where(a) access agreements have been concluded and (b) access agreements have not be concluded, and the price of each piece per hectare.
  68
  Mr. Redwood
  The areas of forest land in Wales sold by the Forestry Commission since 1 July 1993 are shown in the following table, which also includes those where an access agreement has been concluded. The price paid per hectare is only given where the purchaser has agreed that such information can be made public.

  County and name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Price (£S) per hectare

  Access agreement

  Clwyd

  Bryndethol

  7.00

  1,900

  —

  Bryn y Pys

  76.00

  —

  —

  Cambrian Quarry Wood

  19.00

  —

  —

  Coed Esgyufa

  6.00

  1,700

  —

  Coed Galltegfa

  2.00

  —

  —

  Crown Wood

  0.40

  —

  —

  Graig Wen

  13.00

  —

  —

  Llwyngelli

  10.00

  —

  —

  Maes Mynach

  10.00

  800

  —

  Rhydygasseg

  6.00

  —

  —

  Travellers Inn (road improvement)

  0.50

  4,300

  —

  Worlds End

  84.00

  1,300

  —

  Dyfed

  Allt Cae Ffynon Wen

  3.00

  1,600

  —

  Allt Cilfrychen and Goredig

  27.00

  —

  —

  Allt Cwm Tywyll

  5.50

  1,900

  —

  Allt Hafod Wen

  8.00

  1,500

  —

  Allt Penlan Fach

  4.00

  —

  —

  Allt Pistyll Dewi

  33.00

  —

  —

  Allt Pwll Priddog

  19.00

  —

  —

  Allt y Down and Allt Pant Lleuci

  16.00

  —

  —

  Allt y Gwydre

  14.00

  —

  1—

  Brist Coed

  5.00

  —

  —

  Cae Sarah

  4.00

  2,300

  —

  Careg Fadog Wood

  6.00

  —

  —

  Cefn Eithin

  7.00

  —

  —

  Coed Cae Sara

  5.00

  1,200

  —

  Coed Cwm Llwfog

  15.00

  —

  —

  Coed Newydd, Gwastad

  48.60

  —

  —

  Coed Weddus

  4.00

  2,800

  —

  Cresselly Big Wood

  48.00

  —

  —

  Cwm Bran Wood

  8.00

  4,100

  Cwm Croiddur Wood

  7.00

  —

  —

  Cwmfran Fawr

  3.00

  3,100

  —

  Cwmffrwd (pt)

  0.50

  —

  —

  Cwm Gwachel

  15.00

  —

  —

  Factory Wood

  3.00

  —

  —

  Gelli Cefn y Rhos

  7.00

  1,700

  —

  Glebe Farm Woods

  17.00

  1,600

  —

  Hafod Iwan

  32.00

  900

  —

  Llanerch Alder Carr

  2.40

  800

  —

  Maespant

  7.00

  2,100

  —

  North Wood

  27.00

  1,300

  —

  Quarry Wood

  7.00

  —

  —

  Rhosgeler

  9.00

  —

  —

  Taldrum

  5.00

  —

  1—

  Tan y Lan

  32.50

  —

  —

  Tan yr Allt

  7.00

  —

  —

  Wenallt Fawr

  17.00

  1,800

  —

  Ystrad Einion Lea Mine

  3.80

  —

  —

  Gwent

  Barbadoes Hill (land at)

  0.50

  8,000

  —

  Graig Syddi

  28.00

  —

  1—

  Luggas Wood and Youngs Grove

  15.00

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  Braich Blaen Tafolog

  28.10

  —

  —

  Bro Cymner (land at)

  0.02

  —

  —

  Conwy Falls Fish Pass

  0.70

  7,500

  —

  Irby Plantation

  4.00

  —

  —

  Parc Main

  5.00

  —

  —

  Tyn y Coed

  16.50

  500

  —

  69

  County and name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Price (£s) per hectare

  Access agreement

  Mid Glamorgan

  Fochriw to Deri (main sewer imp.)

  0.30

  1,700

  —

  Llanbradach (colliery road)

  0.01

  50,000

  —

  Powys

  Craig yr Henffordd

  7.50

  2,500

  —

  Cwmbach/Cwmcoch

  44.00

  —

  —

  Gribin

  21.00

  3,600

  —

  Gwern y Bwlch Fach

  2.00

  3,100

  —

  Nant Ffridd Fawr

  13.00

  3,100

  —

  Sprigs Wood

  6.00

  50

  —

  Stocking Wood

  8.00

  2,000

  —

  Waun Fawr

  18.00

  3,100

  —

  1 Areas of land where an access agreement has been concluded.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out his target for the sale of Forestry Commission land in Wales in the current year and for the next five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  As announced in Cm 2514, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97 for the Departments of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Forestry Commission", table 13.12, the commission plans to sell 15,000 hectares of forest land in Britain in each of the next three years. The proportion of this that will be sold in Wales will depend on the state of the market, particularly the demand for forest land in different parts of Britain, but the commission estimates that it will be in the region of 15 per cent. As yet, no firm plans have been made for sales in future years.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom aid policy considerations underlie the changes in allocation of aid to Indonesia over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The main considerations that have influenced allocations over the past 10 years include Indonesia's effective macroeconomic management and capacity to make good use of development assistance.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of security in Burundi; and how it is affecting the delivery of aid by British relief organisations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There have been outbreaks of fighting in and around Bujumbura. However, we understand that aid operations are continuing with relative freedom.

  Uganda
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Treasury about the development implications of the continuing debt crisis in Uganda.
  70
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  By long-standing convention, discussions of this nature between Departments are confidential.

  Iraq
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the amount spent on aid to Iraq(a) directly and (b) through international agencies in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following is the information:

  United Kingdom bilateral and multilateral official development assistance to Iraqis 1984–93

  Multilateral agencies1 £ million

  Iraqi people2 £ million

  1984

  0.04

  —

  1985

  0.04

  —

  1986

  0.09

  —

  1987

  0.07

  —

  1988

  0.09

  —

  1989

  0.31

  —

  1990

  0.13

  —

  1991

  4.80

  30.35

  1992

  N/A

  2.33

  1993

  N/A

  5.24

  1 Estimates of United Kingdom share of official development assistance channelled through multilateral agencies. Such estimates are not yet available for 1992 and 1993.

  2 There is no bilateral official development assistance to the Govemment of Iraq. The amounts recorded as flows to Iraq are humanitarian assistance provided through United Nations agencies and NGOs to Iraqi citizens.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the project to develop a sustainable environment and development strategy for the island of St. Helena.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1993 a team comprising representatives from the royal botanic gardens, Kew and the International Institute for Environment and Development was contracted by the Overseas Development Administration to visit St. Helena with the objective of identifying and developing an environmental strategy for the island.

  Following the visit the consultants produced a report entitled "The St. Helena Sustainable Environmental and Development Strategy and Action Plan". The Government of St. Helena have been giving detailed consideration to the report's recommendations, and are expected to respond in the near future.

  Aid and Trade
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of 24 February,Official Report, column 390, if he will list the total aid received by each country on a per capita basis.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is contained in table El of the Overseas Development Administration's British Aid Statistics 1988–89 to 1992–93. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Banana Producers
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, what is his policy in respect of the EC providing a special package of aid to Latin American banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has agreed to support some assistance to Latin American producers for diversification and development.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, what discussions he has had with Directorate-General VIII about the possibility of the EC providing a special package of aid to Latin American banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have had discussions with Commission staff about how the Community should respond to the needs of all banana producers.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, what representation he has received from other EC member states on the possibility of the EC providing a special package of aid to Latin American banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, if he will outline the amendments suggested by the United Kingdom to the EC proposal for aid to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The amendments suggested by the United Kingdom will ensure funds are used to help sustain the economic viability of the industry and to promote restructuring.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, what discussions he has had with Directorate-General VIII on the amendments suggested by the United Kingdom to the EC proposal for aid to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific banana-producing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The amendments suggested by the United Kingdom are under discussion with Commission staff.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, what discussions he has had with (a) the Prime Ministers of the Windward Islands Governments, (b) the Windward Islands Banana Growers Association and (c) the four individual banana growers' associations of the Windward Islands on the amendments made by the United Kingdom to the EC proposal for aid to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey has had several discussions about the EC 72
  proposal and the proposed United Kingdom amendments to it with the Prime Minister of Dominica, who was speaking on behalf of the Windward Island Governments. Our development division in the Caribbean is in close contact with WINBAN and the Banana Growers' Associations. Indeed, the amendments we have proposed are based on such discussions.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, what discussions he has had with other EC member states on the amendments suggested by the United Kingdom to the E2 proposal for aid to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  If the Commission agrees to incorporate the United Kingdom amendments, the revised proposal will be discussed by all member states in a working group of the EC council of Ministers.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 248, what discussions he has had with the Commission about the likely date on which the EC aid package will be available to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ACP will be able to claim compensation for losses in the second half of 1993 as soon as the package is approved by the Council of Ministers.

  Aid (Military Sales)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to introduce legislation amending the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to make explicitly illegal any direct or indirect linking of aid to sales of military equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 sets out the legal basis for the aid programme. It does not cover any specific areas of aid policy. We do not see any need to amend the Act to cover arms sales links. It is the Government's clear policy not to link the aid programme to arms sales.

HEALTH

  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the per capita allocation to hospital and community health services to inner London health authorities for 1993–94; and what are the equivalent figures for(a) Birmingham, (b) Newcastle, (c) Manchester, (d) Liverpool and (e) Leeds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to allocate resources to districts and information held on the total resources allocated to district health authorities in 1993–94 is not available centrally.

  Expenditure Statistics
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent per capita in health services for residents in(a) London, (b) Birmingham, (c) Manchester,

  73
  (d) Liverpool, (e) Leeds, (f) Newcastle and (g) in England as a whole; and what proportion is spent on treatment (i) in hospital and (ii) by community services, excluding the element of cost which is attributable to medical education and research.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table gives per capita spend for 1992–93, the latest year for which expenditure data are available. The figures include non-cash-limited family health services expenditure in addition to expenditure on cash-limited hospital and community health services. Expenditure by district health authorities as purchasers of hospital and community health services is not separately identifiable in the information collected by the Department.

  The figures will include some element of expenditure on research and medical education.

  District health authorities spend per capita £

  Family health services authorities spend per capita £

  Total spend per capita £

  London

  460

  124

  584

  Birmingham

  417

  132

  549

  Manchester

  654

  137

  791

  Liverpool

  487

  142

  629

  Leeds

  381

  140

  521

  Newcastle

  514

  135

  649

  TOTAL ENGLAND

  378

  132

  510

  Source:

  Expenditure—Annual accounts of health authorities (England).

  Population—Mid-year population estimates for 1992 (1991 Census based)

  Notes:

  1. There is additional hospital and community health services expenditure from national and regional top-sliced budgets.

  2. Figures exclude expenditure by the London Postgraduate Hospitals Special Health Authorities. London residents are the main users.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 3 March, Official Report, column 851, what was the percentage increase of the(a) FHSA administration costs and (b) FHSA medicine costs in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The percentage increases in family health services authorities' administration expenditure for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 over the previous year were 55.2, 30.8 and 19.1 respectively. The percentage increases in family health services drugs expenditure for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 over the previous year were 7.1, 11.4 and 14 respectively.

  FHSAs manage the introduction of general practitioner fundholding, the monitoring of general practitioner prescribing, and the development of clinical audit in primary care—all initiatives to improve the effectiveness of patient care and value for money. In 1992–93 administration expenditure represented only 2.5 per cent. of the £6.5 billion of taxpayers' money spent on the FHS.

  Internal Market
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the principles driving the internal market; and what plans she has to regulate it.
  74
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The internal market enables district health authorities and general practioner fundholders to assess their patient's needs and purchase services more responsively. This means that money for services follows patient care to those hospitals and community units which provide high quality and cost effective care. Hospitals and community units therefore have an incentive to develop their services in an environment which encourages increasing efficiency through competition. We already have mechanisms in place to manage the market and these are constantly updated.

  NHS Budget
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the management overhead as a percentage of the total budget of the national health service in each year since 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The gross salary costs of general and senior managers as a percentage of the total hospital and community health services revenue expenditure in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 was 1.7, 1.9 and 2.4 respectively. The figures need to be treated with caution. The number of managers has been deliberately increased since the mid 1980s—not just since the reforms—because the service was previously undermanaged. Much of the increase arises from the reclassification of existing staff, including many senior nurses, as managers. General and senior managers account for only 2 per cent. of the total national health service work force in England.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria she applies when considering proposals for mergers of NHS trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The same criteria area used to assess all applications for national health service trust status, including proposals for trust mergers. They are that the establishment of the trust will give clear benefits and improved quality of service to patients; that management has the necessary skills and capacity to operate independently; that senior professional staff, especially consultants, are involved in the management of the unit and that the trust will be financially viable.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the chief executives of the fourth wave of NHS trusts will receive remuneration of £80,000 per year or above; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about the individual remuneration of trust chief executives is not held centrally. The remuneration of trust chief executives is a matter for trust boards but information about their emoluments is published in annual accounts and annual reports available locally.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mergers of hospital trusts have taken place in London and in England since 1990; and how many hospital beds have closed as a result.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There have been three mergers of national health service trusts since 1990. Information on bed closures is not available centrally.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many shop fronts advertising tobacco products are currently covered by the voluntary agreement with the tobacco manufacturing companies; and how many she estimates are within(a) three miles, (b) two miles, (c) one mile, (d) three-quarters of a mile, (e) half a mile and (f) one-quarter of a mile of school premises.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco brand advertising material displayed on shop fronts is covered by the voluntary agreement, in that the advertising should comply with the cigarette code of the British code of advertising practice. In addition, all such material of 40 sq in or more must carry a health warning. Under the voluntary agreement the total number of external permanent cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco advertisements at retail premises is being reduced by 50 per cent. over five years from July 1991. Priority is being given to reducing the number of signs on shops clearly visible from school. Information on the number of shop fronts advertising tobacco products within different distances of school premises is not held centrally.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 594, when she last had occasion to comment adversely on the time taken to dispose of surplus national health service property.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities have been very successful in disposing of surplus national health service property. In the past 10 years, over £1 billion has been raised which has been reinvested in patient care.

  Some properties do prove to be hard to sell given the difficult property market of recent years. I see no reason to comment adversely on the regional health authorities' performance in this area.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will implement the 10-point plan for supervised discharge of mental health patients set out in the report of the mental health nursing review team.

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced our 10-point plan to reinforce community care for mentally ill people on 12 August 1993, following the Department's internal review of legal powers in this area.

  We have made substantial progress on the matters covered by the plan. Following wide consultation we shall be introducing legislation as soon as possible to give effect to the review team's proposals for a new power of supervised discharge and for extending the present Mental Health Act provision for leave of absence.

  The revised Mental Health Act code of practice was published at the end of August.

  Draft guidance on the discharge of psychiatric patients from hospitals, and their continuing care in the community, was issued for consultation on 12 January. We are now considering more than 250 comments received on the draft and will be issuing the definitive guidance shortly.
  76
  Guidance on the development of supervision registers for the most vulnerable patients was issued in February and health authorities were required to introduce these registers from 1 April.

  As part of our programme to improve training for key workers with mentally ill people, we held a successful conference in London on 3 March, at which I gave the keynote address.

  The clinical standards advisory group is on schedule with its review of standards of care for people with schizophrenia, on which it expects to report to Ministers in December.

  The mental health task force has been reinforced to carry out a special review of mental health services in the London implementation zone. This work is being jointly led by the head of the task force, Mr. David King, and Dr. Peter Kennedy who has been seconded from his post as chief executive of the York health services trust. The team will be working with district health authorities and other agencies to develop short and long-term action plans, and will be reporting to Ministers on progress against the plans and any issues requiring action in the longer term.

  We attach a very high priority to services for mentally ill people and will maintain the vigorous action we have been taking in these and other areas to develop and improve them still further.

  Community Care
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department has given to local authorities and health authorities on consultation with users and carers in producing local purchasing plans for community care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchcliffe) on 9 March,Official Report, column 307.

  Mentally Ill People (Homicide)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the first report of the confidential inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people is expected to be available.

  Mr. Bowis
  We expect to receive the first report later this year.

  Chinese Swabs
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received about Chinese swabs;

  (2) what advice her Department is giving to national health service supplies authorities on the purchasing of Chinese swabs.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two representations have been received. A defective product was withdrawn from use last year and the contract in question was terminated.

  No advice has been given on the purchase of divisions swabs from particular sources. The various purchasing of the National Health Service Supplies Authority are aware of the standards to be applied when purchasing surgical dressings, and that sterile dressings should be purchased from suppliers who operate recognised quality assurance systems.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has given to the request from the Royal Victoria infirmary trust in Newcastle for extra paediatric intensive care provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Royal Victoria infirmary and associated hospitals national health service trust has made no request for additional resources for paediatric intensive care provision. The National Health Service Management Executive has asked all regional general managers and district general managers to ensure that levels of paediatric intensive care provision adequately meet the needs of the local population.

  Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the contracts currently being worked on for her Department by Coopers and Lybrand, Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, KPMG Peat Marwick, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes, Levy Gee, Hacker Young, BDO Binder Hamlyn, Pannell Kerr Forster and Stoy Hayward.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is as shown.

  KPMG Peat Marwick
  Support to Market Test (In-House bid) Prescription Pricing. Local Authority Systems Project.
  Support to Market Test (In-House bid) Main frame computer services.

  Coopers and Lybrand
  Review of Organisations in receipt of Section 64 Grants.
  Hospital Episode Statistics—Business case for redevelopment.
  BACS Payment system.
  Personal Social Services Information Strategy—Mental Illness Project.
  Hospital and Community Health Service Information Strategy Statement.
  Accruals Based Accounting.
  Health Service Indicators Technical Options.
  National Health Service Administrative Register—Benefits Evaluation.
  Development of Information Systems for Providers-Purchaser progress review.
  Investment Scrutiny process.

  Michael Buchanan
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 727, if she will increase the membership of the inquiry panel set up by the North West London mental health trust to investigate the care and treatment of Michael Buchanan, convicted of manslaughter after discharge from Shenley psychiatric hospital, to include two members of the public to ensure that it is as independent and objective as possible, as recommended in the Ritchie report.

  Mr. Bowis
  The panel of inquiry set up by the North West London mental health trust is an independent inquiry and not an internal one of the type referred to in the Ritchie report.

  St. Mary's Hospital
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will hold an investigation into the use by Neil Goodwin, chief executive of the St. Mary's hospital trust, of a private room in his hospital; what arrangements were made for payments; and if she will make a statement.
  78
  Mr. Sackville
  No. Mr. Goodwin was treated as a private patient at his own expense.

  Psychiatric Wards, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the need to increase the number of beds on psychiatric wards in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has received a number of representations about mental health services including the number of beds provided on psychiatric wards in London.

  IT Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information technology consultants her Department has employed, for what purpose and at what total cost for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total expenditure on information technology consultants by the Department for each year since 1990–91, the earliest year for which figures are available was:

  £ million

  1990–91

  10.19

  1991–92

  12.50

  1992–93

  13.37

  1993–94

  12.55

  The services covered by this expenditure included advice on procurement and information strategies, the design, development and implementation of the office automation system and user support services. A very wide range of firms is used for this purpose.

  Pharmaceutical Investment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the initial stage of the strategy to encourage inward pharmaceutical direct investment from the United States and Japan is expected to be completed; and what input has been given from the Board of Trade.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The initial stage of the inward investment strategy is expected to be completed in a few weeks. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Invest in Britain Bureau are represented on the working group set up to develop the strategy.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision she has made for the treatment bf, or vaccination against, penicillin-resistant anthrax.

  Mr. Sackville
  Anthrax vaccine creates protective immunity to the toxin produced by the anthrax bacillus. The vaccine is, therefore, effective against all strains of anthrax, irrespective of their antibiotic sensitivity.

  The anthrax bacillus is sensitive to a number of common antibiotics and these would be available for treatment in the rare event of penicillin-resistant strains.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the extent to
  79
  which naturally occurring strains of anthrax are resistant to penicillin; and if she will make a statement on penicillin-resistant anthrax.

  Mr. Sackville
  Only three cases of penicillin-resistant anthrax have been described in the world literature. One of these occurred in 1974 in the United Kingdom and this was verified at the Public Health Laboratory Service's centre for applied microbiology and research. The other two reports were from Bosnia and Japan, but it has been impossible to verify these. With these exceptions, natural strains of anthrax are not resistant to penicillin.

  Medical Certificates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances general practitioners can charge a fee for issuing a medical certificate to a patient.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under paragraph 37 of their terms of service, general practitioners are required to issue a defined list of medical certificates free of charge. They may charge a fee for issuing certificates not included on this list.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines there are to regulate the use of premises, equipment and staff, paid for from public funds, for the development of private dental practice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fees paid to general dental practitioners do not fund the development of private practice. Fees are set to take account of the average level of expenses incurred in the provision of national health service treatment.

  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with the Manchester Health Purchasing Consortium about the major improvements planned for Wythenshawe hospital; for what reason a new and more limited scheme will now have to be submitted to her Department; what effect an amended scheme will have on the running down of Withington hospital; what other hospitals in the city will be affected; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  When considering major capital proposals we need to be satisfied that schemes are cost effective and offer the best value for money. Officials support Ministers in this by meeting national health service staff and discussing new schemes in detail. The Wythenshawe hospital development is subject to this process. Further improvements to the scheme will deliver better services for less cost. It is too soon to detail the impact that the current revision will have upon the scheme or on other hospitals in the city, including Withington hospital.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received alleging difficulties in recruiting hospital consultants in(a) anaesthetics, (b) accident and emergency, (c) ophthalmology, (d) paediatrics and (e) other specialties.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Health has received representations regarding recruitment of hospital 80
  consultants in anaesthetics and paediatrics. No specific concerns have been raised relating to recruitment in the accident and emergency area.

  In ophthalmology there are a number of senior registrars available to take up consultant appointments, but who, for personal reasons, are not submitting applications for posts.

  In paediatrics, concern regarding shortages of suitably qualified doctors available to take up consultant appointments is known to the Department. The British Paediatric Association has met separately with the then chief executive of the national health service management executive and me to express their concerns. Steps are being taken to alleviate these problems. Regions have indicated to the Department that they expect to fund the additional senior registrar posts they were allocated by the Joint Planning Advisory Committee after the 1992 review within the required time scale of March 1995 at the latest. The increased throughput of higher specialist trainees following the implementation of the Report of the Working Group on Specialist Medical Training, "Hospital Doctors: Training for the Future" should also be of assistance in making suitable candidates available to take up consultant appointments.

  In anaesthetics, a similar situation exists. The Department is fully aware of the Royal College of Anaesthetists' concerns over the availability of suitably trained candidates for consultant posts. Again, positive steps have been taken by the NHS executive to respond to these issues, including the introduction of innovative mechanisms to increase the number of doctors in training in the specialty. As with paediatrics, regions have indicated that they expect to be able to establish all senior registrar posts allocated to them within the required time scale, in this case of March 1996.

  Employing bodies may experience difficulties in recruiting consultants for a range of reasons. These include the nature of the post, its geographical location and the facilities offered at the hospital concerned.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made to ensure adequate provision of long-term beds in the NHS following the recent decision of the health service ombudsman; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The recommendations on the specific care instigated by the Commissioner have been accepted by the Leeds health authority. We are considering whether there are any wider implications to the Health Service Commissioner's report.

  Recruitment Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS has spent on employing recruitment consultants in the last year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responsibility for recruitment of staff, and the procedures they use for doing so, are a matter for national health service employers.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her Department has spent on recruitment consultant purposes in the last year.

  Mr. Sackville
  During 1993–94 the Department of Health, excluding its agencies, spent £259,659 on
  81
  recruitment, of which £204,606 was spent on work carried out by Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, an executive agency of the Cabinet Office.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many home helps were employed by each local authority responsible for community care; and what was the ratio of home helps to population in each authority, at 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Bowls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 15 July 1993,Official Report, columns 624-26 for data in respect of the position at 30 September 1992. Information about the position at 30 September 1993 should be available shortly.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what computer systems her Department have brought in, for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has a large number of computer systems mainly for office support and statistics. It would not be possible fully to list these without incurring disproportionate costs.

  NHS Management Executive
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the costs associated with redesignating the NHS management executive as the NHS executive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 31 March,Official Report, columns 1949–50.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings she has held with, and what representations she has received from, the Institute for Economic Affairs, Centre for Policy Studies, Adam Smith Institute and Institute of Directors regarding reform of the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since late 1992, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met only once with the Institute of Directors and once with the Institute of Economic Affairs. I am not aware, since then, of any written representations which have been received from these organisations on the subject of National Health Service reform.

  Surgical Operations
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports have been made to her of instances in which surgical operations have been conducted without an anaesthetic in NHS hospitals because of lack of supplies.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Care Orders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 687, where those children aged 16 or 17 years
  82
  subject to care orders, were discharged to other than those placed with foster parents or become residents in community homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest centrally available information relates to the position at 31 March 1992, when of the estimated 6,900 children aged 16 or 17 subject to care orders, 2,900 were in placements other than with foster parents or in community homes. Details of these are shown in the table.

  Number of children looked after by local authorities under care orders aged 16 or 17 years by placement at 31 March 1992, England, excluding children in foster placements and community homes

  Number

  England—Estimated Total

  2,900

  In lodgings, living independently of residential employment

  1,100

  Placed for adoption

  30

  Placement with parents regulations

  1,100

  In private registered homes

  50

  In schools for children with special needs, residential care and other schools and homes

  130

  In voluntary homes and hostels

  170

  Remaining placements1

  390

  1 Remaining placements include: youth treatment centres, mother and baby homes, national health service or other establishments providing medical and/or nursing care, young offender institution or prison establishment, children absent from agreed placement, and placements not specifically categorised.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100 for estimates of a thousand or more and to the nearest 10 otherwise.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 537, what was the average, maximum and minimum overspend by the 49 fundholders in 1991–92; and when she expects figures for 1992–93 to be available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Out of the 49 fundholders who overspent in 1991–92, the average overspend was £51,481. The maximum overspend was £158,988 and the minimum £1,236. We are not yet able to say when final audited information for 1992–93 will be available.

  Unwanted Pregnancies
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward proposals to help reduce unwanted pregnancies.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have for some years been actively promoting initiatives to enable people to plan and space their families as they wish and avoid unwanted pregnancies. This activity has received renewed impetus with the publication of the "The Health of the Nation" White Paper which sets challenging targets, in particular to reduce unwanted conceptions amongst under 16s. I am today writing to the hon. Member with further details. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  "Your Pocket Guide to Sex"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of(a) commissioning, (b) printing, (c) distributing, (d) promoting and (e) recalling "Your Pocket Guide to Sex", written by Nick Fisher for the Health Education Authority, which was withdrawn on 23 March.
  83
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: The Health Education Authority estimate the total cost of withdrawing "Your Pocket Guide to Sex" as £17,000. This should be seen in the context of estimated publication income generated by the HEA in 1993–94 of £700,000.

TRANSPORT

  New Roads
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new road schemes have attracted more than 17,500 representations in the past five years in England and Wales.

  Mr. Key
  Two.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 10 new road schemes which have attracted the most representations in the past five years.

  Mr. Key
  The 10 new road schemes which have attracted the greatest number of representations arising out of public consultation over the last five years are as follows:

  Scheme

  Number of representations

  1. M1-M62 link road1

  26,700

  2. M62 relief road

  18,000

  3. M25 junctions 12-15 link roads

  11,800

  4. A453 Clifton lane

  7,200

  5. Greater Manchester western and northern relief road (M56-M62)1

  6,300

  6. Western orbital route/Kidderminster, Blakedown and Hagley bypass2

  6,000

  7. A3 Hindhead improvement

  5,000

  8. A418 west of Aylesbury to Wing

  5,000

  9. A27 Lewes to Polegate improvement

  4,300

  10. Gateshead western bypass

  3,900

  Included in the totals given are the numbers of signatures to petitions as well as those returning departmental questionnaires or other forms of pre-printed reply.

  1 Schemes have been withdrawn from the road programme.

  2 Schemes separated in May 1991.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the Driving Standards Agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has set the following key targets for the Driving Standards Agency, which are contained in the agency's business Plan, a copy of which will be placed in the Library: to achieve, or better, unit costs of £24.50 for car tests; £59.03 for bus, coach and lorry tests; £32.66 for motorcycle tests; and £38.62 for overall approved driving instructor register activities; to recover full costs through fees and charges, including the recovery of accumulated deficits by 1995–96; to achieve a national average waiting time of no more than six weeks for car tests and no more than four weeks for motorcycle, bus, coach and lorry test; and to answer 90 per cent. of telephone calls to booking offices within one minute.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Institute of Professional Driving Examiners is a recognised trade union in the Driving Standards Agency for the purposes of negotiation or consultation.
  84
  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. John Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. S. J. Ford to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 30 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked to reply to your question about recognition of the Institute of Professional Driving Examiners (IPDE) by this Agency.
  IPDF. has been recognised as a trade union in the Driving Standards Agency only for the purposes of consultation. I have no plans at present to recognise 1PDE for negotiation purposes.

  British Rail (Coal Tonnage)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was(a) the national figure and (b) the regional figures for the total coal tonnage carried by British Rail in 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most recent national data can be found in table 1.12 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1993," a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Regional figures are not available.

  Roads (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect his review of the trunk roads programme in England will have on the availability of transport supplementary grant for the Worcester western orbital road and the Wyre Piddle by-pass.

  Mr. Key
  None. As my right hon. Friend made clear in answering a question following his statement in the House on 30 March on the trunk road programme review, the review does not affect local authority roads.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many health and safety inspectors were employed to cover each section of the transport industry in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The definition and responsibilities of health and safety inspectors varies greatly from sector to sector of the transport industry. Details are as follows:Rail: HM Railway Inspectorate employed 21 inspectors in 1978 and 30 in 1992.
  Aviation: Responsibility for safety inspections rest with the Safety Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority which employed 777 people in 1992–93, not all of whom work as safety inspectors. Figures for 1978–79 are not available due to organisational changes.
  Shipping: The Surveyor General Organisation of the Department of Transport employed 186 marine surveyors involved safety inspection work in 1992–93. Comparable figures for 1978–79 are not available.
  Road transport: The Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency employs 925 staff in vehicle inspection and enforcement work. Figures for 1978–79 are not available.

  Roundabouts (Safety)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted on the correlation between the diameter of roundabouts and the occurrence of vehicular accidents around them.

  Mr. Key
  An investigation into accidents at roundabouts, and which addressed the effects of roundabout
  85
  diameters, has been undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory and is reported in TRRL Laboratory report 1120. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Running Costs Review
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of running costs within his Department; and if he will make it his policy to inform the appropriate trade union as soon as surplus posts are identified.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department or its agency will enter into consultation with the trade unions if a surplus staffing situation occurs which might result in the declaration of redundancies.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each meeting held by central Department of Transport management, since the announcement of the running costs review in his Department, to discuss this matter; and who was the senior manager present at each of these meetings.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I understand that running costs are discussed at many meetings of management within the Department. It is not normal practice to provide information of the sort which the hon. Lady requests about the internal management of a Government Department.

  Channel Tunnel Freight Lines
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that sound-proofing insulation is installed along the two south London rail lines to be used by channel tunnel freight traffic to protect local residents from increased noise levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Steps being taken by British Rail (Railfreight Distribution) to reduce the effect of the international rail freight traffic include the introduction of new locomotives and rolling stock and continuously welded rail. In addition, BR (RfD) has agreed jointly funded schemes with local authorities, including the London borough of Bromley, for the provision of acoustic barriers alongside existing tracks expected to be most affected at night. BR (RfD) is willing to hold talks on a corresponding basis with any other local authority whose area is likely to be similarly affected.

  I have recently agreed to provide supplementary credit approval for £0.336 million to Bromley in this context. I and my colleagues will be prepared to consider TPP—transport policies and plans—applications for resources in 1995–96 from other authorities in London which agree schemes with BR (RfD). Such applications will be considered on their merits and in the light of the resources available.

  Staff Redundancies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will define(a) skills and (b) individual ability as used in his Department's "Establishment News", ENT 2/94; and how the criteria will be used to select staff for compulsory redundancy.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's "Establishment News", ENT 2/94, set out the principles and procedures the 86
  Department or its agencies would follow in dealing with potential redundancy situations. The actual criteria adopted to deal with each situation and the way in which they would be used will he decided following consultation with the trade unions at the time.

  Staff, Newcastle
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the offices of his Department in the Newcastle upon Tyne travel-to-work area; and how many posts at each are covered by(a) casual, (b) agency or (c) fixed-term appointment staff.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 30 offices of varying size in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne travel-to-work area. At present, a total of 27 casual staff are employed at six of these offices, and one person is employed on a fixed-term appointment. Details are as follows.

  Building

  Casuals

  Agency

  Fixed term appointments

  Longbenton Newcastle upon Tyne Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  —

  Government buildings Kenton Bar Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 2YY

  —

  —

  —

  Priory Grounds North Shields Tyne and Wear NE30 4DA

  —

  —

  —

  12-16 Woodlands Road Middlesbrough Cleveland TS1 3BE

  —

  —

  1

  Amble Morpeth Northumberland NE65 0AP

  —

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Broadway West Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  —

  —

  Seahouses Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  Wellbar House Gallowgate Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  —

  —

  Bovis House Victoria Road Hartlepool TS24 7EA

  —

  —

  —

  Eagle Star House Regent Farm Road Gosforth NE3 3JN

  2

  —

  —

  Corporation House Albert Road Middlesbrough TS1 2BP

  3

  —

  —

  Maxwell Road Middlesbrough Cleveland TS3 8TE

  —

  —

  —

  St. Andrews House Industrial Trading Estate Haugh Lane Hexham

  —

  —

  —

  The Call Stand Low Quay Blyth Northumberland NE24 3EX

  —

  —

  —

  Banks Road Darlington Co. Durham DL1 1YE

  —

  —

  —

  Wyveston Lodge Sunderland Road South Shields

  —

  —

  —

  Crown House Surtees Street Hartlepool TS24 7AN

  —

  —

  —

  Westgate House Westgate Road Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1TW

  16

  —

  —

  Brus House Thornaby Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  McMullen Road Darlington Durham

  3

  —

  —

  Sandy Lane Gosforth Wideopen Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  —

  —

  159 High Street Stockton on Tees Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  Station Approach Bishop Auckland Durham

  —

  —

  —

  5 Stanley Street Blyth Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  87

  Building

  Casuals

  Agency

  Fixed term appointments

  Elvet House Hallgarth Street Durham

  —

  —

  —

  Mainforth Terrace Hartlepool Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  5 Albert Terrace Linthorpe Middlesbrough TS1 3PA

  —

  —

  —

  1 The Cloisters Stockton Road Sunderland Tyne-Wear

  2

  —

  —

  Corporation Road Darlington Durham

  —

  —

  —

  Seventh Avenue Team Valley Estate Tyne and Wear NE11 0NG

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  27

  —

  1

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold open all vacant posts currently covered by casual staff in the Newcastle vehicle registration office in order that staff declared surplus in the Driving Standards Agency can be redeployed.

  Mr. Norris
  It is the Department's practice to manage staffing so as to allow where possible for the redeployment into other posts of suitable staff who become surplus from their existing work. Firm plans for the posts referred to will not be possible until the current review of the vehicle registration office network, and market testing of work in the Driving Standards Agency, are complete.

  Permanent Secretary
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the objectives set by his Department for the Permanent Secretary for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Norris
  The permanent secretary supports my right hon. Friend in securing the aims and objectives set out in the Department's annual report.

  Child Care Schemes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the child care schemes operated by his Department and agencies and the number of places available on each scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  Child care schemes operated in the Department of Transport and its agencies are listed in the table:

  Location

  Child care scheme

  Number of places

  Swansea

  DVLA Nursery

  60

  Swansea

  DVLA Holiday Playscheme

  70

  Crowthorne

  TRL Summer Holiday Playscheme

  24

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the child care schemes with which his Department has an involvement excluding those run solely by the Department of Transport and the number of places offered on each scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  Child care schemes in which the Department of Transport has involvement are listed in the table:
  88

  Location and childcare scheme

  Number of places available overall

  Hastings

  Child Support Agency Nursery

  35

  Bristol

  Bristol Acorns Nursery

  25

  Bristol Civil Service Holiday Playscheme

  40

  Exeter

  Exeter Civil Service Holiday Playscheme

  30

  London

  Westminster Holiday Playscheme

  64

  Newcastle

  Newcastle City Council Holiday Playscheme

  100

  Nottingham

  Nottingham Inland Revenue Holiday Playscheme

  30

  Manchester

  Manchester Midland Bank Holiday Playscheme

  7

  Liverpool

  Ministry of Defence Holiday Playscheme

  3

  Bedford

  Bedford Civil Service Holiday Playscheme

  42

  Birmingham

  Ladywood Civil Service Holiday Playscheme

  40

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what authority the DVLA passes information about drivers to commercial organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No information from the DVLA driver record is disclosed to any commercial organisation other than with the express consent of the driver concerned.

  Railway Stations (Safety)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Railtrack will spend in its first year of operation on measures to improve passenger safety at United Kingdom rail stations; how much it will spend at stations in south London; and how much British Rail spent on passenger safety improvements at stations in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Expenditure on safety is no longer recorded separately because it is impossible to identify precisely what proportion of expenditure on infrastructure and other improvements is related to safety as opposed to such things as quality of service or efficiency.

  Roads Expenditure, West Midlands
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total expenditure in 1992–93 prices for all expenditure involved on new road construction and maintenance on all roads in the west midlands in each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The figures include expenditure on both new construction and maintenance on all roads—motorways,
  89
  trunk roads and local authority roads. Some estimation has been involved, particularly for 1992–93 where not all figures are yet available.

  £ million (1992–93 prices)

  1982–83

  370

  1983–84

  400

  1984–85

  410

  1985–86

  410

  1986–87

  410

  1987–88

  400

  1988–89

  520

  1989–90

  560

  1990–91

  460

  1991–92

  510

  1992–93

  490

  Redundancies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision has been made in the next financial year's budget for his Department or agencies to run an early retirement/redundancy scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  The position remains as in the reply on severance payments which I gave the hon. Lady on 24 March.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Driving Standards Agency management will consult the Institute of Professional Driving Examiners in line with the departmental redundancy arrangements in the event of any IPDE members becoming surplus.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. John Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. S. J. Ford to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 30 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about consultation with the Institute of Professional Driving Examiners (IPDE) in the event of any of their members becoming surplus.
  In accordance with the departmental redundancy arrangements the Agency will consult with IPDE, and any other Trade Union representing the staff involved, in the event of staff in the Agency becoming surplus.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the relevant trades unions will be consulted at the earliest opportunity if staff within his Department are going to be made surplus.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department or its agency will, in seeking to address any surplus staffing situation which might result in the declaration of redundancies, consult the trades unions representing the staff concerned at the earliest opportunity.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider, when faced with a surplus staff situation or redundancies, redeploying staff elsewhere in the Department even if that means transferring staff from one agency to another.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department or its agency will consider the transfer of staff to other areas of work in the event of a surplus staffing or redundancy situation.
  90
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any of his staff are likely to become surplus as a result of the forthcoming move of the traffic area office in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Key
  As a result of the move of the Edinburgh traffic area office, two members of staff will become surplus to the traffic area office requirements. The traffic area office is working with the regional personnel unit to find alternative posts.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what access his Department has to European Union funds to retrain staff who are liable to be made redundant or who are made redundant.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the European Union funds in question—the European social fund—may be used only for those who are already unemployed. The Employment Department administers the European social fund in Great Britain. Any retraining of staff still employed by the Department would therefore not be eligible for such funds.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the practice of his Department when faced with a potential need to declare redundancies of the type requiring consultation between his Department, and its agencies, and the recognised trade unions, regarding the seeking of agreement about the means of(a) avoiding redundancies, (b) reducing the numbers of redundancies or (c) mitigating the consequences of redundancies.

  Mr. Norris
  In seeking to address any surplus staffing situation which might result in the declaration of redundancies, the Department or its agency will at the earliest opportunity consult the trade unions representing the staff involved. Such consultation will be with a view to considering the ways and means of avoiding compulsory redundancies and with a view to meeting management needs and ending staff uncertainty as quickly as possible.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the objectives set by his Department for the newly appointed chief executive of the Highways Agency for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Key
  The Secretary of State has set the following objectives for the chief executive of the Highways Agency which are published in the Highways Agency framework document:to provide the best possible service both to road users and those affected by roads;
  to manage the new construction and maintenance programmes to secure the best value for money within the Government's overall strategy for trunk roads;
  to contribute to the Secretary of State's target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000 compared with the annual average from 1981 to 1985;
  to give full weight to both the environmental and economic costs and benefits associated with the use, construction and maintenance of trunk roads and to strike a balance accordingly;
  to improve the efficiency of the Agency year on year.

  The chief executive has been set a number of key tasks and targets for the financial year 1994–95 which underpin these objectives. The key tasks and targets are published in the agency's 1994–95 business plan, a copy of which has been placed in the House Library.

  Taxi Drivers (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 21 February regarding Nottingham taxi drivers.

  Mr. Norris
  My reply to the hon. Member was sent on 7 March 1994. With receipt of the hon. Member's letter of 22 March, it became clear that he had not received my letter and my private secretary thereupon faxed him a copy of it.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date the public inquiry on the Birmingham northern relief road will commence; how long it is expected to take; if he will set out the terms of reference for the public inquiry with particular reference to whether it is open to the public inquiry to reject the possibility of building the road; and if the terms of reference will be restricted to the line of the road.

  Mr. Key
  The inquiry will commence on 21 June. It will consider all the draft schemes and orders which have been published. If made, these would establish the route of BNRR, junction and side road arrangements, the compulsory purchase of the land needed for the scheme and ancillary features and the right to levy tolls. The inquiry could last several months.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the tolling design of the Birmingham northern relief road is consistent with the recommendations of his Department's Green Paper on motorway charging; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Green Paper, "Paying For Better Motorways" suggested that while conventional tolling, with toll booths and barriers, had several advantages it would be impracticable to toll the entire motorway network by conventional methods. This is because existing motorways were not designed for tolling and land was therefore not set aside for the purpose; and because conventional tolling over the whole network would cause unacceptable traffic delays. These arguments do not apply to individual stretches of road, such as the Birmingham northern relief road, where provision for tolling is part of the design.

  Shipping Subsidies
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he is making to the French Government and the European Commission about the plans developed by the French Government to subsidise the state-owned shipping company Compagnie Generale Maritime.

  Mr. Norris
  The EC Commission has responsibility for initial consideration of these matters. My Department has made clear that we consider that a number of subsidies to shipping companies in the Community may represent illegal state aids within the terms of the treaty of Rome. We understand that the Commission is investigating whether subsidies paid by the French Government to Compagnie Generale Maritime, or proposed to be paid in the future, contravene the treaty.
  92
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessement he has made of the subsidy and tax concessions made available by member states of the European Union to their domestic shipping companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We believe that some subsidies and tax concessions made available by member states to their domestic shipping industries may constitute illegal state aid within the terms of the treaty of Rome. We have presented detailed information to the EC Commission which has responsibility for the initial consideration of these matters, and we understand that it is currently investigating certain cases.

  Mersey Rail (Signalling)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Southport and Merseyside relating to safety with the new signalling system on Mersey Rail; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the travelling public are protected as a result of this new investment.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any representations from Southport and Merseyside. Her Majesty's chief inspecting officer of railways has received representations from the general secretary of ASLEF.

  The safety assessment by the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate of phase 1 of the new Mersey Rail signalling scheme is almost complete. Her Majesty's railway inspectorate has raised a number of questions with Railtrack. It is anticipated that approval of the works will be granted by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of the Secretary of State following a satisfactory response to the points raised and a site inspection.

  Vehicles (Blacked-out Windows)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) from what organisations he has received representations about vehicles with blacked-out windows;

  (2) what is his assessment of the effectiveness of regulation 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986;

  (3) how many prosecutions have been made under regulation 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Key
  We have received 15 representations about blacked-out windows from members of the public during the last three years.

  Regulation 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 makes the fitment of excessively dark glass illegal. The British and European standards to which this regulation refers requires not less than 70 per cent. light transmission through all window glass. We believe that all vehicle manufacturers comply with this regulation.

  Details of prosecutions for obscuration of windows are not available because prosecutions for all construction and use offences are recorded jointly. We understand that the police would be more likely to bring prosecutions under regulation 30 which relates to the driver's view of the road being unobscured. Some police forces have ordered darkened windows to be cleaned, or dark plastic film to be removed, under their vehicle rectification schemes.

  Traffic Warden Duties
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which local authorities have taken over traffic warden duties;

  (2) what plans he has to transfer traffic warden duties to local authority responsibility.

  Mr. Key
  Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities can apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for designation orders enabling them to use parking attendants to enforce most parking offences in their areas. At present, these offences are enforced by traffic wardens and the police.

  Nine London boroughs—Wandsworth, Bromley, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, Camden, Hackney, Hounslow, Richmond and Southwark—are currently using parking attendants to enforce most parking offences in their areas. It is the Government's intention that all the London boroughs will be enforcing permitted parking by July this year; by that date, it is expected that the majority of the boroughs will also be enforcing most restricted parking. Enforcement on the red routes in London is to remain with the police and their traffic wardens.

  The Government are currently preparing guidance for the local authorities outside London which would like to enforce parking offences in their areas. Once the guidance has been published, local authorities outside London will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for designation orders giving them the necessary powers.

  Road Tax Offences
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the number of road tax offences reported by police to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Swansea in the past year; how many were brought to prosecution; and what was done with those cases not prosecuted.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The number of vehicles reported to the DVLA by the police for alleged vehicle excise duty offences in 1992–93 was 1.8 million. Some 435,000 evaders were penalised, of which 242,000 settled out of court and 193,000 were successfully prosecuted. A further 180,000 evaders were encouraged to relicense their vehicles promptly as a direct result of enforcement activity. In a large proportion of the remaining cases, subsequent checks of the DVLA vehicle register revealed that the vehicles were in fact licensed and no offence had been committed. Other cases were not completed because of defects in offence reports, more than one report being received for the same offence, problems in tracking down offenders, difficulties in serving summonses and availability of resources.

  Air Passenger Safety
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the report by Edward James Trimble, the Principal Inspector of Accidents, entitled "The Management of Aircraft Passenger Survival in Fire."

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 30 March 1994]: The report referred to is the thesis by Dr. E. Trimble undertaken in his own time under the auspices of the faculty of management of Robert Gordon university, Aberdeen. The
  94
  conclusions of this thesis are therefore Dr. Trimble's and not necessarily those of the AAIB or the Department of Transport. The thesis carries a note to this effect. It is therefore not appropriate for copies to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the occasions on which the final approach separations used when there is no additional wake vortex separation requirement for Heathrow are less than the legal minima; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what were the reasons for the decision by the Civil Aviation Authority to authorise air traffic controllers employed by National Air Traffic Services who are qualified commercial pilots to undertake commercial AOC flying activities during their off-duty rest days; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the purpose of the National Air Traffic Services Safety Regulation Group interface document; and if he will place a copy in the Library;

  (4) if the air traffic control separation monitoring function at London air traffic control centre, can respond to aircraft final approach separations applied by controllers at the Heathrow approach radar facility; what plans there are to re-programme the separation monitoring function; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 30 March 1994]: As these four questions all concern matters which are within the responsibility of the CAA, I am asking the chairman of the CAA to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for, and publish, a report from the Civil Aviation Authority as to its view on the research by Dr. E. J. Trimble, the Principal Inspector of Accidents, on the management of aviation passenger survival in situations of aviation fire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 30 March 1994]: the responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation, including the provision of passenger safety equipment, rests with the Civil Aviation Authority.

  The authority published its view on passenger survival in situations of aviation fire in CAP 586, "Improving Passenger Survivability in Aircraft Fires: A Review". The authority's position on the issue of smokehoods, which is the main issue addressed by Dr. Trimble in his private research, was last published in the civil aviation publication CAP 594. I do not have any plans to call upon the authority to publish a direct response to the research in question from Dr. Trimble. However, I shall bring the hon. Member's question to the attention of the authority and ask it to write to him direct to explain its position regarding the conclusions reached by Dr. Trimble.

  Vehicle Inspections
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, columns 106-7, which categories of vehicle other than public service were covered by his answer; and if he will give the corresponding figures for (a) goods vehicles and (b) other vehicles.
  95
  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: My answer of 21 March referred to public service vehicles only. the table attached to that answer shows in addition to the PSV figures, the annual roadworthiness sport checks for heavy goods vehicles, light goods vehicles, cars and motor cycles, as well as the traffic enforcement spot checks for heavy goods vehicles.

  Rail Expenditure
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what will be the level of Government funding to each of the PTEs, via the relevant district or regional councils, for payment of Railtrack charges for 1994–95.

  (2) what is the total section 20 spending for each PTA area for 1994–95 and that planned for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures are not available for planned section 20 spending in each passenger transport authority area. It is for each passenger transport executive to determine the level of local rail services to be provided, in the light of PTA policies for its area.

  Assistance to local authority programmes is given through revenue support grant paid by the Department of the Environment in England and the Scottish Office in Scotland. An amount is provided within the all other services block for distribution to district councils in the six English metropolitan county areas in respect of their responsibility for supporting local rail services. For 1994–95 this element will be £112.9 million. In Scotland an amount is included in the aggregate external finance settlement, which for 1994–95 amounts to £35.2 million in respect of supported rail services in the Strathclyde region. These figures reflect estimates of the cost of maintaining services made on the basis of the railway charging principles applicable up to March 1994.

  Under the new railway charging systems introduced on 1 April 1994 we expect the headline cost to PTEs of maintaining their existing service levels to increase. We have undertaken to cover the increased cost in 1994–95 by making special grant payments to the six PTAs in England and through similar payments to Strathclyde regional council. These will be sufficient, when taken together with the sums provided through the local government finance system, to cover the full cost to PTEs of maintaining their service levels, including the access charges relating to their services. For 1994–95 the PTEs will not be making payments direct to Railtrack for the access charges attributable to their rail services, but will be paying the subsidy required by BR to run the trains. BR, in turn, will pay access charges to Railtrack.

  Thereafter, we intend to enhance the support provided through the local government finance system to reflect the net increase in the level of support required to maintain existing services in future years.

  School Minibuses
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children have been killed and injured in school minibuses in the last year.

  Mr. Key
  In 1992, the latest year for which data are available, it is estimated that 105 school children were slightly injured, and three children were seriously injured in minibuses in journeys to and from school. In addition 193 school children were slightly injured and 19 seriously 96
  injured in minibuses on journeys other than going to and from school. There were
  no child fatalities in minibuses in 1992.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that no school minibus is used without adequate seat belts being fitted.

  Mr. Key
  We are currently considering the full technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts in all minibuses and coaches. We hope to publish the conclusions shortly.

  Pelican Crossings
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what advice he gives to local authorities on the provision of pelican crossings where the criteria laid down by his Department are marginally above the traffic and road conditions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he intends to relax the conditions and criteria for the provision of pelican crossings where a community or parish council consider that local conditions demand such a crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The current advice given to local authorities is that the provision of crossings should not rest solely on the volumes of vehicles and pedestrians but should also take into account local features. The advice is contained in departmental advice note TA 52/87 "Design Considerations for Pelican and Zebra Crossings". A copy is in the Library. This advice is non-mandatory and it is entirely a matter for local judgment whether crossings can be justified at specific sites. Revised advice will be published this year which will stress the importance of taking a broad range of local factors into account rather than relying on rigid arithmetic factors.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the consultants retained by him on the Post Office review have advised him of conflicts of interest.

  Mr. Heseltine
  On a number of occasions the consultants have approached the Department to determine whether work which they were contemplating undertaking for other clients would create a conflict of interest. Each such case has been considered and decided on its merits.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on consultancies relevant to(a) the review of the Post Office and Parcelforce, (b) the review of the DTI research laboratories and the Atomic Energy Authority and (c) the review of the Accounts Services Agency, the Patent Office, Companies House and the Insolvency Service Agency in each of the calendar years 1992 and 1993; and how such expenditures are recorded in MINIS returns.

  Mr. Eggar
  Total expenditure on consultancy advice relating to the Post Office review and privatisation of Parcelforce amounted to £411,624.12 in the calendar year
  97
  1992 and £854,651.35 in 1993. On each of the other reviews a single company was appointed and the individual fees paid to these are commercially confidential. This expenditure is not recorded separately in MINIS. It can be found as part of the running costs or programme budget, as appropriate, in the form "0" of the relevant management unit's MINIS return.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether consultants continue to be employed on the review of Parcelforce and the Post Office; on what occasions such consultancies have been subject to renewal or renegotiations; and whether competitive tenders were sought on every such occasion.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All appointments of consultants in connection with the Post Office review and the

  Current public expenditure period

  Past launch aid 1983–84 to 1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Payments—£ million cash

  British Aerospace

  696.4 (878.9)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rolls Royce

  146.1 (234.4)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Westland

  87.5 (119.5)

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Shorts

  0

  0

  20

  2.5

  0

  Receipts—£ million cash

  British Aerospace

  173.5 (182.4)

  28.9

  34.0

  53.5

  53.5

  Rolls Royce

  240.9 (291.8)

  22.8

  34.8

  24.9

  24.9

  Westland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shorts

  0

  0

  5

  2.5

  0

  Notes:

  1. Constant/current prices are in brackets.

  2. Constant/current prices are deflated to 1992–93, most recent Treasury deflator index.

  Wind Power Station, Humble Hill
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to hold a public inquiry into the proposed Humble Hill wind power station, Northumberland.

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions on the proposed windfarm are continuing. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will wish to take account of the outcome of those discussions before deciding whether to hold a public inquiry into the application.

  Monopoly Inquiries
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the cost to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of its inquiry into(a) perfumes and fine fragrances and (b) ice cream supplies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The MMC estimates that the cost to it of carrying out these inquiries was £559,000 for fine fragrances and £368,000 for ice cream.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how often a ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation will be called; and if he will make a statement.
  98
  privatisation of Parcelforce have been made after a competitive tendering process. The resulting contracts have been extended as appropriate, and some remain in force. Details of individual contracts are commercially confidential.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing which companies have received launch aid; what the total receipts and expenditure in cash and current prices has been; and what receipts and expenditure in current prices are expected to be in the current public expenditure policy period.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information on launch aid is in the table:

  Mr. Needham
  The ministerial conference of the proposed World Trade Organisation is to meet every two years.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the voting arrangements for member nations of the World Trade Organisation.

  Mr. Needham
  Each member of the proposed World Trade Organisation will have one vote.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether measures to promote(a) sustainable development and (b) environmental protection are enshrined in the constitution establishing the World Trade Organisation.

  Mr. Needham
  A commitment to sustainable development is set out in the preamble of the proposed agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation. In addition, a work programme on trade and environment issues is to be agreed at the time of the Marrakech ministerial meeting. This will involve examination by the members of the WTO of a wide range of issues associated with the interaction of the rules of the trading system and environmental protection.

  Consorzio Ital Offshore
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 656, what further steps he now proposes to take to reschedule the visit to Ital Offshore by Offshore Supplies Office officials; if he will approach the EU Commission under the terms of the Single European Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The invitation to OSO to visit CIO's fabrication site was unsolicited and was subsequently cancelled by the yard. Despite extensive discussions in the United Kingdom and Sicily, the OSO, working with the consulate general Naples, has been unable to establish grounds for making a formal complaint to the EU Commission about the Judy award.

  Ethylene (Substitution)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have taken place between BP Chemicals and his Department, and between his Department and the European Commission regarding the substitution of ethylene now being produced at BP Chemicals Baglan Bay from alternative sources.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. This is a matter for commercial decision by the company.

  Caparo Judgment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for reversal of the Caparo judgment.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to seek to change the present state of the law.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for legislation under which the recognised supervisory bodies would owe a duty of care to individual shareholders.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to seek to change the present state of the law.

  Healthcall (MMC Referral)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate whether there is a case for referring Healthcall to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Such investigations are a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, and any concerns the hon. Member has should be directed to him.

  European Union Trade Policies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effects on United Kingdom sovereignty of the trade policies of the European Union.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Under article 113 of the treaty of Rome, the EC acts as a single party in most areas of trade policy. The Commission negotiates for the Community, in 100
  consultation with member states and subject to Council approval of resulting agreements. The United Kingdom remains a GATT contracting party, and will be an original member of the World Trade Organisation.

  Environmental Technology Exhibition
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) Ministers and (b) staff attended the employment training "94 Environmental Technology" exhibition at Birmingham from 22 to 24 March.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Due to prior engagements no DTI Minister was able to attend the ET "94 Environmental Technology" exhibition. However, the DTI once again exhibited and also organised two seminars on the capabilities of United Kingdom environmental technology suppliers and export opportunities.

  Aerosol Sprays
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it a mandatory requirement that all aerosol sprays which carry a "Flammable" warning label should also carry the flame symbol.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The use of the flame symbol is governed by Commission directive 67/548/EEC as amended, which has been implemented in this country by the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993. The directive and these implementing regulations require the symbol to be used only where a product is labelled "Extremely Flammable" or "Highly Flammable" and not just "Flammable".

  Immovable Property Transactions Report
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports other than the principal report by Wilde Sapte and Maclay Murray and Spens entitled "Information and Protection of Transactions concerning Immovable Property Purchased by Consumers" have been commissioned by the European Commission in areas which might reasonably be expected to have an impact upon the detailed regulation of the United Kingdom's manufacturing and construction industries; if he will make it his policy in future to notify the House and industry of the commissioning of all such reports in future; and if he will make arrangements to ensure that British industry has the opportunity to be consulted in the preparation of all such reports.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The European Commission does not inform the United Kingdom Government of all the reports which it commissions.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the extent to which copies of the principal report by Wilde Sapte and Maclay Murray and Spens entitled "Information and Protection of Transactions concerning Immovable Property Purchased by Consumers" are available in other member countries of the European Community; what consultation about the recommendations of the report has been undertaken with industry in those countries; and what preliminary conclusions have been reached by the European Commission on those recommendations.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Commission has not officially released the report, although we understand that some
  101
  copies are in circulation. It is understood that the Commission has no plans at present to take forward the recommendations in the report.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government were approached or consulted by Wilde Sapte and Maclay Murray and Spens during the research which they recently undertook and which led to the production of a principal report entitled "Information and Protection of Transactions concerning Immovable Property Purchased by Consumers".

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Office of Fair Trading and the Lord Chancellor's Department were approached during the research before the report was made.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to the European Commission of the principal report by Wilde Sapte and Maclay Murray and Spens entitled "Information and Protection of Transactions concerning Immovable Property Purchased by Consumers"; by whom, specifically, that report was commissioned; what is the status of that report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The European Commission has not disclosed the cost of the report which it commissioned. The status of the report is that it is an unreleased confidential report made to the European Commission.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to circulate copies of the principal report by Wilde Sapte and Maclay Murray and Spens entitled "Information and Protection of Transactions concerning Immovable Property Purchased by Consumers" to the Confederation of British Industry, the National Association of Estate Agents, the Building Societies Association, the Building Employers Confederation, the Personal Investment Authority, the Law Society and all those financial services regulatory bodies whose members are involved in the provision of advice about lending in connection with immovable property purchase;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 March, Official Report, column 204, whether he now intends to make available to industry copies of the principal report by Wilde Sapte and Maclay Murray and Spens entitled, "Information and Protection of Transactions concerning Immovable Property Purchased by Consumers"; and if he will invite the comments of industry on the recommendations of that document;

  (3) what plans he has to bring forward proposals to change the law in any of those areas which are his responsibility and which were included in the recommendations of the principal report by Wilde Sapte and Maclay Murray and Spens entitled "Information and Protection of Transactions concerning Immovable Property Purchased by Consumers".

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government are not entitled to make public the contents of a confidential report which is the property of the European Commission.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department was first approached under aid and trade provisions for support for the Pergau dam; by which firm he was approached; and if he will set out, the dates of each step in the main sequence of events in his Department's consideration of the application.

  Mr. Needham
  According to DTI records, DTI officials were in frequent discussions during the summer of 1988 with Balfour Beatty and GEC about the Ulu Jelai hydro-electric project, which these two companies had formed a consortium to pursue, and for which they had applied for ATP in July 1988. On 20 September representatives of these companies expressed to DTI officials their interest in Pergau and GEC indicated that it was intending to apply for ATP for that project, rather than for Ulu Jelai. Subsequently a formal application for ATP dated 11 November was submitted by Balfour Beatty on behalf of the United Kingdom consortium. The industrial and commercial benefits that ATP support would bring to the United Kingdom were then assessed by DTI officials. Following approval by the then Minister for Trade on 20 January the ATP case paper was circulated to other Government Departments for consideration on 24 January 1989.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the dates and give the actual changes that occurred in the costs of the Pergau dam project and the detailed reasons that were given for the changes in costs.

  Mr. Needham
  A formal ATP application with a contract value of £315 million was lodged by Balfour Beatty on behalf of the United Kingdom consortium on 11 November 1988. On 3 March 1989 the United Kingdom consortium submitted a revised price of £316 million broken down by its various elements. No reason was given for the increase but it was known that the United Kingdom consortium had been working on its price since November 1988. Information on the further price rises to £397 million and £417 million respectively is contained in the National Audit Office report on the Pergau hydro-electric project, dated 22 October 1993. Copies of this are available in the Library of the House.

  Technology Transfer Programmes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects approved under, and give the regional distribution of expenditure incurred within each of the technology transfer programmes relating to(a) advanced control technology, (b) biochemical engineering and (c) neural computing technology in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The details requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the compensation payments given to members of staff at the National Engineering laboratory and Warren Springs laboratory who have been made redundant in the last year.

  Mr. Heseltine
  There have been no redundancies at either the National Engineering laboratory or Warren Spring laboratory.

  At both laboratories, staff numbers have been reduced through voluntary early retirement, voluntary early severance and through placement in other posts in the Department.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) to what extent administrative delays have resulted in a delay in his Department making a decision about regional selective assistance grants to Stone Plastics Ltd. and Tape Seals Ltd. of Atherstone, Warwickshire;

  (2) whether his Department has investigated the effect on jobs and exports of delays in approving regional selective assistance grants for Stone Plastics and Tape Seals Ltd.

  Mr. Needham
  There have been no delays in reaching decisions on the regional selective assistance applications from Stone Plastics Ltd. and Tapeseals Ltd. Both cases are currently undergoing appraisal to determine whether the criteria for assistance are met.

  Electricity Tariffs
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the different domestic electricity tariffs throughout the United Kingdom, in descending order of price.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is set out in the table:

  Domestic Electricity Tariffs 1 April 1994

  Standard tariff

  Economy 7

  Standing charge per quarter (£)

  P/kwh

  Standing charge per quarter (£)

  P/kwh (day)

  P/kwh (night)

  Public Electricity Supplier

  South Wales

  11.25

  8.08

  14.10

  8.66

  2.65

  Northern

  11.04

  7.95

  13.92

  8.37

  2.65

  Manweb

  11.55

  7.78

  14.80

  8.15

  2.81

  Northern Ireland

  13.95

  7.75

  18.55

  8.21

  2.68

  Eastern

  9.10

  7.42

  14.30

  7.42

  2.74

  East Midlands

  9.30

  7.34

  13.08

  7.34

  2.70

  Southern

  10.33

  7.27

  13.25

  7.90

  2.64

  Yorkshire

  10.13

  7.22

  13.21

  7.63

  2.83

  Seeboard

  10.84

  7.21

  13.92

  7.21

  2.68

  Midlands

  8.79

  7.18

  12.65

  7.75

  2.75

  Scottish Power

  10.11

  7.13

  15.22

  7.70

  2.93

  South Western

  11.45

  7.11

  15.00

  8.52

  2.84

  London

  12.22

  7.08

  15.31

  7.67

  2.76

  Scottish Hydro

  11.03

  6.78

  14.00

  7.18

  2.68

  Norweb

  10.84

  6.60

  14.27

  7.07

  2.61

  NB. Companies are listed in descending order of unit cost per kilowatt hour under the standard tariff.

  Other Notes:
  Manweb are giving a £10 rebate, Seeboard a £8 rebate and SWEB a £4.50 rebate.
  Most companies offer a set reduction for payments by direct debit. There are other tariffs by domestic consumers such as power key and special tariffs for storage heaters.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 648, if he will update his list of consultants commissioned to provide advice on the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Brodies WS was appointed on 22 March 1994 to provide legal advice in connection with Scottish aspects of the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to make further information available about coal privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  N. M. Rothschild will issue a preliminary memorandum on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 13 April at 11 am. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received from(a) British Nuclear Fuels and (b) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution as to the awarding of licensing instruments by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in the commissioning process for THORP at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  The issuing of a licensing instrument—LI—is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, the NII. I understand that the NII, on completion of its assessment of the results of uranium testing at the THORP plant at Sellafield, issued an LI on 25 March. Reprocessing at THORP subsequently started on 27 March.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what type, quantity and value of arms have been exported to south-east Asia in aggregate, without detailing country by country information, by the United Kingdom, in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is published regularly by the Ministry of Defence in "UK Defence Statistics" which is available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which banks backed the ECGD credits on the successive Government to Government arms deals with Jordan.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to make public details of individual defence export orders or the related financing arrangements unless the relevant parties have agreed to this. No such agreement has been given in these cases.

  British Coal Superannuation Scheme
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if there will be an evaluation of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme prior to privatisation; and if the Government will provide funds to meet the costs;
  105
  (2) whether the three-year evaluation of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme will continue; when the next evaluation will take place; and if Her Majesty's Government will provide funds to meet the cost of such an evaluation.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is proposed that after the privatisation of British Coal the industry pension schemes should have valuations at intervals of not more than three and a half years. The possibility of a further valuation of the staff superannuation scheme before privatisation is a matter for the trustees. The costs of valuations will continue to be met from scheme funds.

  Electricity (French Interconnector)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the ratio of United Kingdom imports to exports of electricity supply via the electricity supply link between the United Kindom and France in each year since 1986 on a quarterly basis and in the first quarter of 1994 expressed in gigajoules.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  106 gigajoules

  Electricity imported from France

  Electricity exported to France

  1986

  Q1

  0.39

  0.03

  Q2

  3.62

  0.01

  Q3

  2.95

  0.30

  Q4

  9.05

  0.35

  1987

  Q1

  7.96

  0.00

  Q2

  11.88

  0.10

  Q3

  10.12

  0.03

  Q4

  12.07

  0.00

  1988

  Q1

  11.16

  0.00

  Q2

  12.33

  0.04

  Q3

  12.61

  0.01

  Q4

  10.13

  0.00

  1989

  Q1

  11.35

  0.00

  Q2

  14.28

  0.00

  Q3

  12.68

  0.00

  Q4

  10.40

  3.23

  1990

  Q1

  0.17

  0.16

  Q2

  12.74

  0.00

  Q3

  14.75

  0.00

  Q4

  15.51

  0.01

  1991

  Q1

  15.46

  0.02

  Q2

  13.41

  0.02

  Q3

  14.81

  0.01

  Q4

  15.45

  0.00

  1992

  Q1

  15.53

  0.00

  Q2

  14.38

  0.02

  Q3

  14.79

  0.08

  Q4

  15.50

  0.02

  1993

  Q1

  15.43

  0.02

  Q2

  14.48

  0.00

  106

  Electricity imported from France

  Electricity exported to France

  Q3

  14.78

  0.00

  Q4

  15.49

  0.00

  Note
  Information for the first quarter of 1994 is not yet available.

  Coal Industry Bill
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the National Rivers Authority regarding the Coal Industry Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has received no representations from the National Rivers Authority on the Coal Industry Bill. The NRA has, however, provided comments in the context of the consultation exercise on the Coal Authority explanatory note and draft model licensing and leasing documents.

  New and Renewables Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects approved under the new and renewables programme since its inception, together with the geographical distribution of the expenditure incurred.

  Mr. Eggar
  The list of projects approved under the new and renewable energy programme since its inception is very long and I will write to the hon. Member with a full list of approved projects in due course. I will place that letter in the Library of the House.

  I regret that it will not be possible for this listing to provide a geographical distribution of the expenditure incurred. This information is not readily available and its presentation would entail disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Projects Board
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) of 9 February,Official Report, column 323, if he will list all the members of the Overseas Projects Board since 1984 with the terms and conditions of the appointment, including any recompense, expenses or remuneration.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 21 February 1994,Official Report, columns 22-23.

  With regard to conditions of service, appointments are made by the Minister of Trade normally for a period of three years. Members are required to treat all commercially classified material which they may obtain during the course of their membership as strictly confidential. Members are reminded that Government information is subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.

  Members are asked to provide the Department of Trade and Industry with a list of companies in which they hold directorships and/or have financial interests and to update the information as necessary. This list is treated in the strictest confidence and is not made available outside the Department.
  107
  The appointment does not carry rights to recompense, expenses or remuneration.

  I have placed a copy of the board's terms of reference in the Library of the House.

  Carrier Technology Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects approved under, and the regional distribution of expenditure incurred within, the carrier technology programme since its inception.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  One project on the application of chaos theory to the production of spring wire has been approved within the carrier technology programme. The project began in December 1993 and will last two years. It will cost £156,000 and has a DTI grant of £76,000. The Spring Research and Manufacturers Association of Sheffield, and the university of Warwick are the main collaborators.

  Space and Satellite Industry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what review he is undertaking of the British space and satellite industry; and whether the retention of a directly owned British satellite manufacturing capability forms part of his strategy for competitiveness.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My officials are in regular contact with the British space and satellite industry, although no specific review is currently being undertaken. In encouraging the British satellite manufacturing industry to enhance its competitiveness, we work with the companies involved on the best means of achieving that objective.

  Manufacturing, Planning and Implementation Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects approved under, and the regional distribution of expenditure incurred, within the manufacturing, planning and implementation scheme since its inception.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A list of projects approved under the manufacturing, planning and implementation scheme that have reached grant status is attached. The approximate distribution of expenditure by region is as follows:

  £ Thousand

  North, West

  900

  North East

  400

  South West

  550

  South East

  850

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  950

  East Anglia

  450

  West Midlands

  1,250

  Scotland

  500

  Wales

  300

  East Midlands

  800

  List of Supported Projects

  1 Platon International

  2 Skippingdale Paper

  3 Rainford Group

  4 Hinckley Mouldings

  5 CMK Treatments

  6 KM-Comark

  7 MDH Limited

  108

  8 Sanmex International

  9 Permoid Ind.

  10 Dalepak Foods plc

  11 Dewhursts plc

  12 Elkay Electrical

  13 Appor Limited

  14 Mulberry Co. Ltd.

  15 Bloxwich Engineering

  16 Kirpac Ltd.

  17 Helix

  18 Airedale International

  19 Gledhill Water Storage

  20 The Dane Group

  21 Hobart Rose

  22 Carlton Int

  23 Montan Group

  24 Federation Breweries

  25 Carver and Co.

  26 Hillary's Blinds

  27 Econ Engineering

  28 Pulsafe Safety Products

  29 Regent Belt Co.

  30 Kitchen Range Foods

  31 Hilden Manufacturing

  32 Cherub Ltd.

  33 Edward MacBean

  34 Ebac Ltd.

  35 Autonumis

  36 Oxley Developments

  37 Hocking NDT

  38 Ambi-Rad

  39 Safeline

  40 Simon Jersey

  41 Blowspeed Industrial Mouldings

  42 Albion Concrete products

  43 Hozelock

  44 Lewis Woolf Griptight

  45 M. R. Hadida Ltd.

  46 Unipack Ltd.

  47 Asme Lt.

  48 GFE Bartlett and Sons

  49 Craig and Rose

  50 Souplex Ltd.

  51 Weatherite Ltd.

  52 East Yorkshire Glass

  53 AM Paper Convertors

  54 Meridian Foods

  55 Regent Lock Ltd.

  56 Cooke Bros Ltd.

  57 Phostrogen Ltd.

  58 Grower Marketing Services

  59 MSP Ltd.

  60 Manchester Circuits

  61 Hayes Tubes

  62 Aulds (Foods) Ltd.

  63 Shering Weighing

  64 Crane Electronics

  65 Stemwest Produce Ltd.

  66 Servomex plc

  67 Silverscreen Print

  68 Darron Tool and Engineering

  69 Turner Brothers

  70 P. and L. Suswin

  71 Premier Pottery

  72 Cambridge Optical

  73 John Blackburn

  74 W. Karp and Sons

  75 Charles Walker

  76 Crabtree

  77 S. and A. Foods

  78 Nusteel Structures

  79 Redler

  80 Stewart Buchanan Gauges

  81 Leslie and Co. (Coventry) Ltd.

  82 Progenitive Services

  83 Circast Electronics

  84 Thompson Carmichael

  85 Chromalock

  86 Zincast Foundry

  87 Lancaster Glass Fibre

  109

  88 Self Serve Hygiene

  89 FERMEC

  90 Brookside Group (Meighs) Ltd.

  91 Cardinal Broach

  92 Foward Group plc

  93 George Ward

  94 Burall Plastec

  95 Ford Component Manufacturing

  96 Applied Security Design Ltd.

  97 Welbeck (UK) Ltd.

  98 Roberts Capsule Stopper

  99 Morgan Motor Company

  100 Porter Hopkins Ltd.

  101 Metalformers Ltd.

  102 CLF International

  103 Brooke Tool Engineering

  104 Reid Group plc

  105 Wild Country Ltd.

  106 Cranford Circuits

  107 Assembly and Automation Ltd.

  108 Concord Temperature Controls

  109 Unwins Seeds Ltd.

  110 Meteorway Ltd.

  111 Plastic Developments

  112 Blackburn Starling

  113 Kleeneze plc

  114 Swift

  115 Atreus plc

  116 HC Slingsby

  117 Vedonis

  118 Bode and Son Ltd.

  119 Newport Technology Group

  120 Fox Brothers and Co. Ltd.

  121 The Michelmersh Brick and Tile Co. Ltd.

  122 Langley Alloys Ltd.

  123 C. H. Branham Ltd.

  124 Envair Ltd.

  125 Dagless Ltd.

  126 Armeg Ltd.

  127 Gilberts

  128 Meridian House

  129 Poole Pottery Ltd.

  130 Storforth Engineering

  131 C. C. L. Group plc

  132 Eclipse Blinds

  133 ETAL

  134 Strathclyde Fabricators

  135 William Baker (Leicester) Ltd.

  136 Thwaites Ltd.

  137 Kembrey Wiring Systems

  138 Robor Cartons Ltd.

  139 Danline Int. Ltd.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library returns showing for each country of the OECD, for each country of the European Union and for Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, the imports and exports of postal services as defined in the Standard International Trade Classification for each year between 1982 and 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  The only postal services recorded within the Standard International Trade Classification are SITC 911.0—mail not classified by kind. The information is not readily available for all the countries listed over the period requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information for some of the countries is published in the relevant country volumes of the "United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Best Practice Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects approved under, and the regional distribution of expenditure incurred within, the environmental best practice programme since its inception.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The environmental technology best practice programme is expected to be launched in June 1994. No expenditure under the programme has yet been incurred.

  Advanced Technology Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the reasons for the closure of the advanced technology programme and support for innovation; and what evaluation of these programmes was carried out before their closure.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The support for innovation scheme was withdrawn as a result of the decision, announced in the 1988 White Paper, "DTI—the Department for Enterprise", Cm 278, to end DTI support for near-market research and development through grants to individual companies. An evaluation of the scheme was carried out in July 1987.

  The advanced technology programmes were closed in September 1993 following a further review of DTI's science and technology policy and programmes in the context of the White Paper on science, engineering and technology, "Realising our potential" (Cm 2250). The review decided that the balance of DTI's innovation support should be shifted away from generating new technology, on which DTI spend was less than 2 per cent. of industry's own research and development spend, towards technology transfer and exploitation and the promotion of innovation. Two programmes were evaluated; gallium arsenide in May 1991 and wealth from the oceans in December 1992.

  Fees (Export Credit Cover)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on granting export credit cover on long-term project costs which include(a) initial design and other fees preparatory to the award of any contract or (b) any commissions or brokerage fees; what written guidance on such matters is available to ECGD or exporters; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Needham
  Initial design and other preparatory fees can in principle be covered provided these are part of the overall export contract. Commissions and brokerage payments may also be eligible for export credit support if these form part of the exporter's overall costs of the contract.

  There are no specific internal instructions in ECGD on cover for design and other preparatory fees. The internal instructions on cover for commission payments have been placed in the Library of the House. There is no written guidance for exporters on either issue; advice is usually given in the context of the contract being considered for ECGD support. Copies of ECGD's information guides for exporters are also being placed in the Library of the House.

  "Good Government" Rule
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Exports Credits Guarantee Department observes any rules, or guidance similar, or equivalent to, the "good government" rule of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Needham
  The ODA's "good government" objective, alongside other objectives for the aid programme, is specifically designed to assist the ODA's decision making process.

  The ECGD's function is to support United Kingdom exporters bidding for commercial contracts overseas by providing insurance and guarantees against the risks of non payment. In assessing these risks ECGD takes account of the economic and political circumstances of the markets in question as well as the credit worthiness of the individual buyers and borrowers concerned. It is a condition of the ECGD's guarantees that the exporter must obtain all necessary licences and authorisations for the exports to proceed.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff the Export Credits Guarantee Department has seconded to the British offset office at the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no ECGD staff seconded to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover(a) has been offered and (b) is outstanding in relation to the Saudi Arabia offset programme.

  Mr. Needham
  The answer is(a) Nil and (b) nil.

EDUCATION

  Further Education
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what will be the role, remit, funding and governance of the new development agency for further education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have accepted the broad thrust of recommendations from the further education funding councils, to establish a new body to support and develop the quality and delivery of further education. This new body will supersede the further education unit and the Staff college, and will build on the valuable contributions that both have made. Arrangements for the transition to the new body will be finalised in the light of discussion with the funding councils, the further education unit and the Staff college.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of the costs of the new development agency for further education will be met by is Department in each of the first three years of its existence.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government intend that, over time, the new body should generate a substantial proportion of 112
  its income direct from colleges. It will be funded at the outset through a combination of block grant from the further education funding councils, and income from other sources including charges for services. The balance between these will depend on the needs and wishes of the customers, and the potential for attracting income.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the reasons for not including heads and governors of grant-maintained schools in the consultative processes which set the local management of schools formula for their schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1 January 1994, local authorities have been required by law to consult heads and governors of grant-maintained schools in their area, as well as those of the schools which they maintain, about proposed amendments to their schemes of local management where these amendments constitute "significant variations" which require the Secretary of State's approval.

  HMI/Ofsted Reports
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures his Department intends to take to ensure that HMI/Ofsted reports on private and independent schools which receive public funds are sent to parents of children at those schools.

  Mr. Forth
  All independent schools are monitored regularly as part of a programme of inspections by the Office for Standards in Education—Ofsted. Schools which are the subject of a published report are supplied with a stock of copies for distribution to parents, and are made aware that further copies may be obtained free from Ofsted. Ofsted also sends copies to the national and local press, thus alerting parents to the existence of the report and their right to obtain a copy.

  School Buses (Seat Belts)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to provide adequate funding to ensure seat belts are fitted to minibuses used by schools for the transportation of children.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department of Transport is currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of fitting seatbelts to all minibuses and coaches, including those used for the transportation of school children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be publishing his conclusions shortly.

  Student Income and Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when his Department's survey of student income and expenditure was published for 1990, 1991 and 1992; when he expects the survey for 1993 to be published; and what expenditure was incurred on the preparation of each of these surveys.

  Mr. Boswell
  The report of the student income and expenditure survey for the 1992–93 academic year was published by Research Services Limited on 16 December 1993. The cost of the survey funded by the Department for Education was £181,000. The previous survey covered the 1988–89 academic year. There were no such surveys in the intervening years.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 269, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as listed:

  1989

  Contracts

  BIS Ltd.

  3

  Peat Marwick Mclintock

  3

  Coopers and Lybrand

  2

  CMG Ltd.

  1

  Digitus

  1

  Fearnhart

  1

  Illston and Crowcroft

  1

  Scoll Ltd.

  1

  TOTAL

  13

  VALUE

  £555,000

  1990

  Contracts

  Coopers and Lybrand

  6

  BIS Ltd.

  3

  ICL Ltd.

  3

  PE International

  3

  Butler Cox

  2

  KPMG

  2

  Oracle Ltd.

  2

  Peat Marwick Mclintock

  2

  Touche Ross

  2

  Amtec Consulting

  1

  CMC Ltd. CMG Ltd.

  1

  Elizabeth Braiden

  1

  Ernst and Young

  1

  F. Parrott

  1

  FI Group

  1

  Henley Consultants

  1

  Hoskyns Ltd.

  1

  Intac Ltd.

  1

  J. Broadbent

  1

  Kinesis Computing

  1

  Lalcrest Ltd.

  1

  LBMS Ltd.

  1

  Oxford Computer Training

  1

  Peter Pierce-Price

  1

  Radius Ltd.

  1

  RML Ltd.

  1

  SCOLL Ltd.

  1

  Tranrate Ltd.

  1

  Tunnock and Parish

  1

  Two B Ltd.

  1

  TOTAL

  47

  VALUE

  £974,000

  1991

  Contracts

  Coopers and Lybrand

  7

  Sema Systems

  6

  LBMS Ltd.

  5

  PE International

  4

  Touche Ross

  4

  Duhig Berry

  3

  Kinesis Computing

  3

  114

  Contracts

  Admiral Ltd.

  2

  BIS Ltd.

  2

  EIS Ltd.

  2

  Express Consultancy

  2

  Forvus Ltd.

  2

  Hugh Whiteside

  2

  Insight Consulting

  2

  Price Waterhouse

  2

  Thorn EMI

  2

  WS Atkins

  2

  BBT Ltd.

  1

  Brown Associates

  1

  CSL Ltd.

  1

  Dataflex

  1

  Derek Etherington

  1

  Ernst and Young

  1

  Howard Whiteside and Partners

  1

  Kingsley Lord

  1

  KPMG

  1

  London University

  1

  Mcneil Robertson Partnership

  1

  Michael Gill

  1

  Microsoft Ltd.

  1

  MSL Ltd.

  1

  MTA Ltd.

  1

  National Computing Centre

  1

  Neville Russell

  1

  Oracle Ltd.

  1

  Oxford Computer Training

  1

  PA Consulting

  1

  Peat Marwick Mclintock

  1

  Poplar Consultants

  1

  Radius Ltd.

  1

  Research Machines Ltd.

  1

  Robert Young

  1

  Robson Rhodes

  1

  ROCC Computing Ltd.

  1

  SC Scicon

  1

  SCS Ltd.

  1

  Software Sciences

  1

  Sybase Ltd.

  1

  TOTAL

  83

  VALUE

  £1,517,000

  1992

  Contracts

  KPMG

  4

  BIS Ltd

  3

  Coopers and Lybrand

  3

  Ernst and Young

  2

  Insight Consulting

  2

  Price Waterhouse

  2

  Admiral Ltd

  1

  Aid to Industry

  1

  Alan Marshall

  1

  Audit Consultancy and Training

  1

  BBT Ltd

  1

  Central Office of Information

  1

  CSL Ltd

  1

  Duhig Berry

  1

  Express Consultancy

  1

  Forvus Ltd

  1

  Granada Computer Services

  1

  Kinesis Computing

  1

  MFT Computer Systems

  1

  MSL Ltd

  1

  Oxford Computer Training

  1

  115

  Contracts

  Oracle Ltd

  1

  Peter Kemp

  1

  PE International

  1

  Richard Ellis

  1

  Saxton Bampfylde

  1

  Sema Systems

  1

  Shreeveport Ltd

  1

  Thomas Henley

  1

  Touche Ross

  1

  TOTAL

  40

  VALUE

  £1,994,000

  1993

  Contracts

  Coopers and Lybrand

  8

  KPMG

  5

  Ove Arup

  3

  PA Consulting

  3

  Price Waterhouse

  3

  Arden Business Consultants

  2

  Express Consultancy

  2

  Touche Ross

  2

  Uden Consulting Ltd.

  2

  Alan Wilkinson

  1

  AMP Systems

  1

  Barony Consulting

  1

  Beard Dove Ltd.

  1

  BIS Ltd.

  1

  BUPA Occupational Health

  1

  Capita Ltd.

  1

  CMG Ltd.

  1

  CSL Ltd.

  1

  David Medd

  1

  DEGW London

  1

  Dr. J. Haskell

  1

  Eric Granshaw

  1

  Ingres Ltd.

  1

  J. Holdsworth

  1

  J. Huskins

  1

  Kinesis Computing

  1

  Kingdom Technology

  1

  KPG Ltd.

  1

  Loretta Franklin

  1

  Lorraine Stout

  1

  Microsoft Ltd.

  1

  Morgan Harris Burrows

  1

  N. M. Rothschild

  1

  Oxford Computer Training

  1

  Peter Kemp

  1

  Sophie Jackson

  1

  Steven Jackson

  1

  Terry Kinnard

  1

  Trackit Systems

  1

  W. S. Atkins

  1

  TOTAL

  61

  VALUE

  £1,629,000

  GRAND TOTAL

  244

  VALUE

  £6,669,000

  Student Debts
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the current average debt of students in England to the Student Loans Company Ltd;
  116
  (2) how many graduates became liable from 1 April to make repayments to the Student Loans Company Ltd.; what is the average debt; and what have been the changes in these figures since April 1993.

  Mr. Boswell
  These are matters for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Autism
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of educational support services provided for children with autism in England.

  Mr. Forth
  The effectiveness of educational provision in schools for pupils with special educational needs, including autism, which may include the effects of special educational needs support services, is inspected as part of the continuing inspection programme of the Office for Standards in Education.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many local education authority school inspections have so far been awarded, despite a cheaper bid from the private sector; if he will total the differences between the value of the contract and the level of the lowest private bid in each of those cases; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the total of the differences between the value of the private sector contract, and the local education authority sector contract lowest bids submitted to Ofsted for each school inspection to date; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many Ofsted inspections have currently been awarded to (a) the private sector and (b) the local education authority sector; and what was the amount of each bid.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are a matter for Ofsted.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Literary Programmes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 520-21, what evaluation he has made of the literacy programmes mentioned in his answer.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  As I said in my answer of 28 March, the reading recovery trial is still in progress, as is the independent research project sponsored by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. We will evaluate the programme once the trial and the research project have been completed.

  Of the other GEST-funded literacy projects, some have only just been completed; others will not finish until March 1995. They will be evaluated in due course.

  The adult literacy and basic skills unit is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the family literacy initiative. The unit will report to my right hon. Friend when the initiative has concluded.

  The increased grant to the volunteer reading help—VRH—organisation is to help it expand its operation,

  117
  particularly in the north of England. The organisation provides regular information to the Department on numbers of volunteers trained and placed with schools. The evidence provided by VRH is that its work provides an effective contribution to the raising of reading standards.

  Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of funding by the Further and Higher Education Council to Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute in 1993–94; and what is the planned level in 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1993–94, the Further Education Funding Council made available funding of £15,855 for the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute. In 1994–95, provisional funding from the council, excluding any additional money for growth, will be £98,576.

  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing the fees charged for overseas students for each of the last five academic years, including the current academic year; and what proposals he has for levels of fees over the future public expenditure planning period.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government do not set the level of fees charged to overseas students originating from outside the EC. Further and higher education institutions are expected to recover the full cost of the courses that they provide to overseas students. The establishment of fee levels therefore falls outside the public expenditure planning process.

  The tables show the illustrative minimum fee levels circulated by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Council of Local Education Authorities over the last five academic years as guidance to institutions in determining their fee levels.

  Higher Education Institution

  Arts degree

  Science degree

  Clinical years (medicine dentistry, veterinary science

  £

  £

  £

  1989–90

  4,300

  5,700

  10,500

  1990–91

  4,560

  6,050

  11,150

  1991–92

  5,000

  6,630

  12,210

  1992–93

  5,320

  7,055

  12,990

  1993–94

  5,550

  7,360

  13,550

  Further Education Institutions

  Arts degree

  Science degree

  FE courses

  £

  £

  £

  1989–90

  4,107

  no level set

  1990–91

  3,000 to 5,670

  no level set

  1991–92

  5,019

  2,778

  1992–93

  5,319

  2,946

  1993–94

  5,547

  3,072

  Reading Skills
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 520-21, what plans he has to develop the
  118
  existing specific programmes to improve reading skills among young children beyond 1995; and what plans he has to ensure that the expertise gained by those involved in reading recovery programmes will be utilised after 1995.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No decisions have been taken about specific programmes beyond 1995. As I said in my answer of 28 March, we will consider what further action might be taken on reading recovery in the light of evidence from the trial and the independent research project, both of which have yet to be completed.

  Dogs
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make a statement on the activities of commercial concerns in the promotion of dog ownership in primary schools;

  (2) how many educational visits to schools have been made by dog wardens and other agencies with interest in dogs since 1988;

  (3) what measures the Government intend to take to end the promotion of dog ownership to primary school children.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally. Individual schools and the parents of the pupils concerned will wish to take a responsible attitude to dog ownership.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of official entertaining in his Department in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information available is as follows:

  £ thousands

  1990–91

  57

  1991–92

  86

  1992–93

  96

  The cost of official entertainment in each of these years is included in the running cost expenditure for the Department which is published every year in the annual report; figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. The entertainment budget is used for a variety of functions including receptions. Separate figures are not kept for individual functions.

SCOTLAND

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of official entertaining in his Department in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Lang
  Total expenditure on ministerial hospitality for the years in question was:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  65,123

  1991–92

  62,800

  1992–93

  94,385

  1993–94

  49,805

  119
  Expenditure on hospitality is included within the running cost expenditure for my Department which is published each year in the annual report. The hospitality budget is used for a variety of functions including receptions but providing details of individual events would incur disproportionate costs.

  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Service
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which bodies he has consulted regarding possible changes to the Highland and Islands veterinary services schemes following the completion of consultants reports on the scheme; and when he issued any consultation guidelines.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: The following organisations were sent a copy of the consultant's report on 4 June 1991; and were invited to comment.

  British Veterinary Association

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  Crofters Commission

  Scottish Crofters Union

  Highlands and Islands Enterprises

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Highland Regional Council

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of the land area in(a) Scotland and (b) Highland region is covered by the proposed list of special areas of conservation which he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage;

  (2) what proportion of the sites of special scientific interest in (a) Scotland and (b) Highland region are included in the proposed list of special areas of conservation which he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: Scottish Natural Heritage, in conjunction with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, has submitted to the Government a preliminary and confidential list of sites from which candidate special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive, 92/43/EEC, may be chosen. This list does not constitute a list of proposed special areas of conservation, but merely a contribution to the Government's consideration of what sites may be proposed as candidate special areas of conservation.

  The Government expect to publish for consultation later this year proposals for candidate special areas of conservation.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take advice from the local authorities on the economic and social needs of those areas contained in the proposed list of special areas of conservation he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage prior to its issue for public consultation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: The preliminary advice received from Scottish Natural Heritage does not constitute a list of proposed special areas of conservation. The Government believe that when a list of candidate special areas of conservation has been prepared, the owners and occupiers of those sites should be the first to be informed. Nonetheless, the Scottish Office
  120
  would be interested in any advice which local authorities might care to give about areas which they consider suitable or unsuitable for proposal as special areas of conservation.

  Civil Servants (EC Matters)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give numbers, ranks and departments within Scottish Office of those civil servants who work exclusively on EC affairs; which are monitoring EC activities; and which are administering and advising on grants.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of staff from grade HEO to grade 5 who spend a significant proportion of their time on EC business in each of the departments of the Scottish Office is set out in the table. Figures are not available for grades other than those listed.

  The figures indicate the overall percentage of time which officers spend on EC work; information on the proportion of time spent on the different aspects of EC business is not available.

  Scottish Office officers involved in EC business

  Percentage of time spent on EC work

  Grade

  100-60 per cent.

  60-25 per cent.

  25-10 per cent

  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  5

  4

  3

  1

  7

  13

  6

  2

  SEO

  3

  1

  1

  HEO(D)

  2

  —

  —

  HEO

  19

  8

  2

  Senior Prof Grades

  8

  2

  1

  The Scottish Office Education Department

  Senior Prof Grades

  2

  1

  1

  The Scottish Office Environment Department

  5

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  1

  1

  7

  —

  —

  5

  HEO(D)

  —

  —

  1

  HEO

  —

  1

  4

  Senior Prof Grades

  —

  7

  3

  The Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  HEO

  —

  —

  1

  The Scottish Office Industry Department

  5

  1

  —

  1

  6

  1

  —

  —

  7

  3

  —

  —

  SEO

  4

  1

  —

  HEO(D)

  1

  —

  —

  HEO

  7

  1

  1

  Senior Prof Grade

  —

  —

  3

  Central Services

  5

  —

  —

  1

  7

  —

  2

  —

  HEO

  —

  1

  —

  Lamb Losses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what scientific evidence he has that fox destruction clubs are actually reducing lamb losses; how the extent of economic loss compares with expenditure on funding fox destruction clubs; and if he will make a statement.
  121
  Sir Hector Monro
  Studies carried out by the Scottish Office and others indicate that between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. of viable lambs may be predated by foxes. Losses at the level of 1 per cent. would represent some £1.2 million per annm compared with grants amounting to £70,068 in 1993–94. If foxes are numerous, predation on lambs may increase. The fox destruction clubs have been successful in reducing the numbers of foxes by between 3,500 and 4,000 a year mainly before and during the lambing period. A further study of this matter is neither necessary nor would it be practicable at reasonable cost.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the geological survey reports relating to the Skye bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A copy of the geological survey reports were lodged in the Library last year following a similar request from the hon. Gentleman on 8 February 1993.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he holds centrally about the specific skill shortages that Government training schemes are remedying.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on specific skill shortages remedied by Government training schemes is not held centrally. It is the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, through their respective networks of local enterprise companies, to deliver Governnment training schemes, with the aim of providing young people and unemployed adults with the skills, vocational qualifications and work experience to help meet the needs of local labour markets.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts currently being worked on for his Department by Coopers and Lybrand, Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, BDO Binder Hamlyn, KPMG Peat Marwick, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes, Levy Gee, Hacker Young, Pannell Kerr Forster and Stoy Hayward.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department does not maintain a central record of all current contracts and it would be disporportionately costly to compile the information sought. Information is available for the 1993–94 financial year and the details are as follows.

  Name of company and contract

  PRICE WATERHOUSE

  1. Finance Group Review

  2. Milk Marketing Reorganisation

  3. Commercialisation review of a Development Corporation

  4. Computer System for FE Colleges

  COOPERS AND LYBRAND

  1. Financial Health Checks on FE Colleges

  2. IT Strategy Studies

  3. Computerised Financial and Management Information Systems Project for an Executive Agency

  4. Managing the migration of an Executive Agency's IT System to a new building

  5. Preparation of Annual Accounts for an Executive Agency

  122
  KPMG

  1. Community Care Database

  European Regional Development Trust
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the annual sums of money committed since the inception of the European regional development trust to each recipient local authority and each regional council and the annual amounts paid to each from the fund.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. Since 1975, local authorities in Scotland have received awards totalling almost £677 million which have resulted in payments to date totalling almost £576 million. The total awards and payments to each recipient local authority are as follows:

  £

  £

  District Councils

  Award

  Payment

  Angus

  1,328,797

  1,152,268

  Argyll and Bute

  759,245

  518,624

  Caithness

  153,000

  61,200

  City of Dundee

  9,277,976

  6,612,747

  Clackmannan

  1,389,900

  1,153,943

  Clydebank

  2,719,599

  2,607,408

  Clydesdale

  827,969

  789,187

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,651,443

  838,411

  Cunninghame

  5,978,945

  4,587,373

  Dumbarton

  1,063,271

  860,060

  Dunfermline

  2,754,280

  1,839,478

  East Kilbride

  3,271,456

  1,256,160

  East Lothian

  565,144

  318,097

  Eastwood

  55,000

  51,250

  Edinburgh

  1,014,146

  811,629

  Falkirk

  2,683,080

  2,026,781

  Glasgow

  20,626,470

  19,088,113

  Gordon

  193,000

  193,000

  Hamilton

  2,621,622

  1,845,712

  Inverclyde

  2,995,450

  1,375,888

  Inverness

  1,495,696

  1,126,923

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2,374,200

  476,382

  Kirkcaldy

  2,542,336

  1,797,626

  Kyle and Carrick

  553,350

  215,336

  Lochaber

  531,600

  38,600

  Midlothian

  1,957,911

  824,423

  Monklands

  5,062,430

  4,419,117

  Moray

  59,640

  33,133

  Motherwell

  3,029,719

  2,930,359

  Nairn

  45,727

  27,318

  Nithsdale

  174,500

  165,988

  North East Fife

  189,300

  165,403

  Perth and Kinross

  16,406

  13,637

  Renfrew

  5,055,215

  4,192,037

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,256,509

  939,398

  Skye and Lochalsh

  55,000

  55,000

  Stewartry

  144,000

  144,000

  Stirling

  6,033,266

  3,496,497

  Strathkelvin

  1,290,835

  1,076,405

  Sutherland

  18,000

  18,000

  West Lothian

  3,608,214

  2,705,641

  Wigtown

  920,000

  834,542

  Regional Councils

  Borders

  2,551,288

  1,744,124

  Central

  27,363,430

  22,353,603

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,868,995

  10,158,583

  Fife

  29,261,460

  23,388,543

  Grampian

  14,439,042

  13,601,252

  Highland

  64,744,265

  58,893,445

  Lothian

  39,450,238

  31,770,343

  Strathclyde

  277,464,202

  248,789,512

  Tayside

  32,583,733

  28,537,101

  123

  £

  £

  District Councils

  Award

  Payment

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  18,844,047

  13,036,540

  Shetland

  29,790,829

  25,302,973

  Western Isles

  29,113,521

  24,304,728

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish Enterprise about its ability to respond to the training needs of existing work forces within Government guidelines.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations from Scottish Enterprise. His officials in the Scottish Office Industry Department meet and discuss with Scottish Enterprise officials from time to time a range of issues affecting delivery of Government training programmes, including the application of the guidelines governing these programmes.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish Enterprise about the adequacy of the supply of serviced sites of differing sizes in the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  Ensuring an adequate supply of suitable sites and premises for businesses, including inward investors, is a key function of the enterprise bodies; and it is a matter on which Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office are in regular contact.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of 21 February 1994,Official Report, columns 51-52 and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) of 16 March 1994, Official Report, columns 659-60.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information technology consultants his Department has employed, for what purpose and at what total cost, for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of 21 February 1994,Official Report, columns 51-52 and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), on 16 March 1994, Official Report, columns 659-60. These include details of information technology consultancy contracts.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Paris Commission's policy agreed in June 1993 will be used in deciding whether to allow the Dounreay reprocessing plant to increase levels of radioactive discharge.
  124
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: Recommendations of the Paris Commission are not binding although the United Kingdom complies with those it accepts. The United Kingdom entered a reservation to recommendation 93/5 and takes the view that it is inappropriate for the Commission to have a role in the approval or rejection of individual projects. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom takes most seriously its commitments under the Paris convention and it is expected that the national competent authority will have full regard to these commitments in arriving at decisions in respect of the current applications for revised discharge authorisations at Dounreay.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements made for international scrutiny and consultation on allowing increased radioactive discharge from Dounreay reprocessing plant.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: All international obligations with respect to the current applications for a revised discharge authorisation for Dounreay will be complied with.

  Forestry Commission
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all Forestry Commission woods currently for sale in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England; and if he will give details of all current targets for the disposal of Forestry Commission land both by area and projected income.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]: The areas of forest land currently being offered for sale by the Forestry Commission on the open market are given below.

  As set out in the Government's expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, the commission plans to sell about 15,000 hectares of forest land in each of the next three years, and expects to receive a total of about £61 million from the sale of forest land and surplus properties during that period.

  Region and Name

  Area (hectares)

  Scotland

  BORDERS

  Lumsdaine

  5

  DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY

  Aldouran

  15

  GRAMPIAN

  Auchintoul Moss

  62

  Bithnie

  129

  Craigmuir Wood

  34

  Cruchie Wood

  7

  Haremoss

  19

  Lauchentilly Moss

  30

  Longhill

  120

  Moreseat of Hatton

  38

  Mormond Hill

  255

  New Pitsligo (2 lots)

  42

  Whitestones

  5

  HIGHLAND

  Ardelve

  26

  Balmore (Craskie)

  49

  Balmore (Glencannich)

  70

  Balmore (Main Road)

  40

  125

  Region and Name

  Area (hectares)

  Balmore (Muchrachd)

  29

  Clava and Craggie (Lot 1)

  33

  Croftdhu

  14

  Dundonnell

  312

  Eilean Darach

  110

  Faichem

  7

  Fain (Cpt 2038)

  22

  Fain South (Cpt 2037)

  4

  Gleann Mor

  17

  Old Calder

  40

  Score Farm and Roadside Strips

  17

  Storr (East)

  79

  STRATHCLYDE

  Auchindrain

  234

  Dalsmirren

  1,094

  High Ugdale

  21

  Inverneill

  102

  Loch Sween

  179

  Scoor and Beech (Lots 3, 4, 5, 6)

  1,784

  TAYSIDE

  Auchleeks

  358

  Keillour (part)

  11

  County and name

  Area (hectares)

  Wales

  DYFED

  Allt Cil y Llyn Fawr

  3

  Allt y Fergwm

  23

  Cilgwyn Wood

  11

  Coed Cefn Pwll Hen

  20

  Hafod Wood

  12

  Llwyn y Gwair

  14

  Penrallt Ddu

  13

  Ty'r Shyme

  7

  GWENT

  Llandafal Wood

  10

  Ty Fry Big Wood

  17

  POWYS

  Coed Llwydral

  3

  Coed Pen-yr-Herber

  4

  Cyfronydd

  8

  Dewis Gwyn

  6

  Dolarddyn Wood

  4

  Henllan

  5

  Henryhd Wood

  11

  Mod Groes Heol

  130

  Moydog Wood

  6

  Pen-y-Coed

  4

  WEST GLAMORGAN

  Bryn Llefrith

  26

  Nant y Stalwyn

  44

  County and name

  Area (hectares)

  England

  BERKSHIRE

  Lot Wood

  6

  CORNWALL

  Croft Pascoe

  45

  Haywood

  54

  Penance and Derry's

  7

  Port Elliot Estate

  108

  Prideaux

  24

  Treworgey

  17

  Wheal Par

  5

  126

  County and name

  Area (hectares)

  DERBYSHIRE

  Overton Wood (Part)

  23

  DEVON

  Bedpark

  8

  Brownsham Wood

  70

  Bucksmill

  24

  Chagford (5 Lots)

  33

  Deershill Wood

  11

  Hawkmoor

  22

  Knowle Wood

  8

  Little Silver/Crowball Wood

  8

  Northpark

  17

  Pulsworthy

  3

  HAMPSHIRE

  Fishers/Tiddles

  28

  Land at Bassett Green

  2

  ISLE OF WIGHT

  Long Lane

  9

  Woodhouse

  18

  KENT

  Cole Wood

  22

  LINCOLNSHIRE

  Black Plantation

  5

  Hallbush

  10

  Hungram Gorse

  6

  Pleasurehouse Wood

  10

  Square Wood

  2

  NORTHUMBERLAND

  Haydon Fell

  20

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

  Coombs Wood

  16

  SHROPSHIRE

  Coed Detton

  14

  SOMERSET

  Chantry

  6

  East Wood

  12

  Fry's Wood

  24

  Harridge Wood

  39

  Higher Bitcombe

  30

  Lower Bitcombe

  18

  Oaktrow Wood

  17

  Stowey Wood

  3

  The Thickets

  4

  Timbercombe (East)

  7

  West Wood

  9

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE

  Green Springs

  12

  The Old Park

  41

  WEST SUSSEX

  Hedgelands Copse

  11

  WILTSHIRE

  Roundway Hill Covert

  27

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of graduates trained as secondary school teachers at each college in Scotland for the past 10 years and the subjects being studied; if he will list the number of new graduate teachers employed per
  127
  local authority in that time; if he will show what occupations each graduate qualifying in secondary school teaching has entered in the last 10 years; if he will list the cost of the training of graduate secondary school teachers in each year since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Information is not available in the precise form requested. The number of graduates trained as secondary school teachers by subject area is set out in statistical bulletins published by the Scottish Office in June 1992 and December 1993—reference numbers Edn/G1/ 1992/8 and Edn/G1/1993/11—copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Tables 1 and 2 following provide information about the number of newly qualified secondary teachers known to have been appointed to teaching posts in Scotland and the first destination of newly qualified teachers. Table 3 provides information about the cost of training secondary school teachers.

  Table 1

  Number of newly qualified secondary teachers known to have been appointed to teaching posts in Scotland at March of each year following graduation

  Qualified in June of

  Employer in Scotland

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Scotland total

  395

  369

  283

  404

  434

  602

  Borders

  5

  11

  6

  5

  7

  11

  Central

  17

  19

  4

  15

  23

  31

  Dumfries and Galloway

  26

  27

  9

  12

  15

  10

  Fife

  24

  25

  23

  35

  25

  34

  Grampian

  44

  48

  51

  35

  59

  80

  Highland

  20

  20

  15

  25

  18

  21

  Lothian

  21

  23

  24

  24

  24

  60

  Strathclyde

  174

  125

  116

  198

  204

  284

  Tayside

  45

  28

  12

  18

  26

  28

  Islands authorities

  16

  19

  10

  14

  10

  11

  Independent or other schools

  3

  23

  13

  23

  23

  32

  Outside Scotland

  61

  60

  53

  45

  74

  82

  TOTAL

  456

  429

  336

  449

  508

  684

  Table 2

  First destination of newly qualified secondary teachers in Scotland at March of year following graduation

  Qualified in June of

  Employed as teachers

  Employed (non-teaching)

  Unemployed

  Other

  Not known

  Total

  1987

  456

  57

  87

  11

  67

  678

  1988

  429

  50

  23

  8

  70

  580

  1989

  336

  45

  39

  9

  40

  469

  1990

  449

  35

  43

  6

  75

  608

  1991

  508

  47

  82

  13

  212

  862

  1992

  684

  46

  98

  7

  298

  1,133

  Notes:

  1. Information on the first destination of newly qualified teachers is obtained from a twice-yearly survey of graduates from the five colleges of education and former colleges of education. The first survey is taken at September following graduation; a follow-up survey takes place in March.

  2. There is a high level of non-response to this survey, so that currently the first destination of around 25 per cent. of newly qualified teachers is unknown. Direct comparison between years is complicated by the effect of varying degrees of non-response to the survey in different years.

  3. Figures are unavailable prior to 1987.

  4. Information on the nature of non-teaching employment is unavailable.

  5. The figures in both tables include an element of estimation in cases
  128
  where only partial, information is known.

  6. Information on Stirling University teacher training graduates is not available in this form.

  Table 3

  Course

  Estimated cost per student (£)

  Year

  BEd Secondary

  26,460

  1989–90

  (4-year course)

  31,320

  1990–91

  26,880

  1991–92

  PGCE Secondary

  6,610

  1989–90

  (one-year postgraduate course)

  7,600

  1990–91

  7,300

  1991–92

  Notes:

  1. Information for earlier years is unavailable.

  2. The information is based upon returns from teacher training institutions (other than the University of Stirling) detailing course costs. The figures include also an estimate of student support costs, assuming entitlement to full maintenance grant and loan at the "home" rates.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Taxes
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to permit the contracting out of local tax collection, including the exercise of discretion in granting discounts and initiating prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have issued a consultation paper setting out my intentions, subject to the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. This was sent to interested parties and placed in the Library on 25 March.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase(a) the number of nitrogen dioxide pollution monitoring sites in London and (b) the number of London sites in the enhanced urban network of air quality monitoring stations; and what is the average cost of each pollution monitoring site.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to extending the enhanced urban monitoring network to cover all major cities by 1997. In addition the Government are currently considering responses to the recently published consultation paper on "The Future of Air Quality Monitoring Networks in the United Kingdom", in which proposals were made to develop a framework which draws local and national air quality monitoring together into a coherent quality assured network. Any expansion in the number of monitoring sites within the London area will be made in the context of these two initiatives.

  The average cost to establish an enhanced urban network site is of the order of £110,000 with an additional annual running cost of £75,000. The capital cost of establishing an automatic nitrogen dioxide monitoring site is about £30,000 with a subsequent annual running cost of an additional £25,000.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for co-ordinating the collection and assessment of air pollution data from local
  129
  authority environmental health department monitoring equipment and his Department's network of pollution monitoring stations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are considering responses to the recently published consultation paper on "The Future of Air Quality Monitoring Networks in the United Kingdom", which included proposals to develop a framework which draws local and national air quality monitoring together into a coherent quality assured network.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the OPSIS users group of local authority air pollution monitoring equipment users.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is aware of the work of this group.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to resite the Frederick street, Cardiff, air pollution monitoring station away from the pedestrian shopping precinct and to resite the Croft street monitoring station away from the traffic management scheme area; what guidelines he has issued as to the priority of(a) kerbside and (b) pedestrian congregation areas for measurement of vehicle exhaust emission levels as regards (a) PM10 and (b) benzene; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question on 30 March,Official Report, column 872, on siting criteria for air quality monitoring.

  I have received no representation on the siting of the Frederick street or Croft street monitoring stations. I have published no guidelines on the priority or otherwise of kerbside and pedestrian congregation areas for air quality monitoring purposes.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the guidelines pertaining to the siting requirements for air pollution monitoring stations; what proposals he has for ensuring that vehicle exhaust emission air pollution is measured by monitoring stations located in sites other than in pedestrian precincts; what representations he has received in relation to the location of the air pollution monitoring station at Frederick street, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: The siting criteria of the Department of the Environment's enhanced urban network are given in the "Enhanced Urban Monitoring Network Site Operators Manual". A copy of the siting criteria have been placed in the Library of the House. Sites which are established to monitor compliance with an EC directive are located according to the requirements of the directive. Air quality is monitored at the kerbside monitoring station at Cromwell road, London within lm of the road.

  I have received no representation on the location of the air quality monitoring station at Frederick street, Cardiff.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water courses have been polluted through water from disused coal mines in the county of Durham; and if he will give their locations.
  130
  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority is carrying out an assessment of water pollution from disused coal mines in the Durham coalfield and has identified a number of cases where there has been a localised impact. Details are available from the NRA's Northumbria and Yorkshire region.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) of 24 January,Official Report, column 32, which organisation or individual is doing the research into the operation of consents under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; what is its cost; on what date it was commissioned; what consultations were undertaken to determine the terms of reference of the research; when the report will be received; and if he will publish the research and its findings.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following competitive bids, the research contract was awarded to Staffordshire university. The project commenced on 1 November 1993 and is expected to be completed by the end of April. The cost of the project will be in the region of £30,000, including VAT. The normal consultations were carried out on the terms of reference of the research. It is the Department's usual practice to publish research reports.

  Waste Management
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he accepts recommendation 234 of the deregulation task force with regard to exempting recyclate from the waste management regime.

  Mr. Atkins
  The substantial deregulation action that my Department is taking in relation to all the task force recommendations to reduce unnecessary controls on business, including the metal recycling industry, while safeguarding environmental and public safety is fully set out in each of the three categories at pages 36 to 44 of the DTI publication, "Deregulation—Cutting Red Tape," which was issued on 19 January. A copy of this publication was placed in the Library on that date.

  Kirklees Council
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the debt of Kirklees council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total external debt of Kirklees metropolitan council was £261 million at 31 March 1993.

  We shall continue to encourage authorities to reduce its indebtedness.

  London (Elected Authority)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the responses to his consultation paper, "London, Making the Best Better", referred to the need for a democratically elected citywide authority for London.

  Sir George Young
  Some 17 per cent. of the people responding to the consultation exercise said they would like to see the creation of a single elected authority for
  131
  London and a further 6 per cent. made a specific reference to the GLC. In addition, 5 per cent. of respondents mentioned some form of single strategic planning authority for London, 1 per cent. an elected mayor, and 2 per cent. a combination of two or more of the suggestions.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to ensure that the single regeneration budget is fair and equitable to all sections of the community.

  Mr. Baldry
  The bidding guidance for the single regeneration budget, which will be issued shortly following extensive consultation, will make it clear that the budget is intended to benefit, among others, those sections of the community which are at a disadvantage, the young and ethnic minorities, and will help to promote equal opportunities. Monitoring arrangements will be put in place to ensure that support through the budget reaches those people it is intended to benefit.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he will issue in relation to the implementation of the European Union habitats directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A planning policy guidance note—PPG—on nature conservation will be issued shortly before regulations transposing the habitats directive come into force. Guidance and advice on other aspects of the directive may be provided as appropriate to affected land owners and occupiers and others either by the Government or the statutory nature conservation agencies.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for a report on pollution problems relating to Black Clough, Cliviger, Burnley, from the National Rivers Authority and North West Water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority has investigated water pollution of Black Clough from the closed Black Clough, Deerplay and Hilltop collieries. The consultation paper "Paying for our Past", published on 8 March, said that the justifiction for the special exemptions for abandoned mines should be reassessed in the light of the emerging conclusions of the review of contaminated land and liabilities, and invited views on the exemptions.

  Sewage Pumping
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue advice to water companies as to the desirability of reducing energy consumption expended in pumping of sewage towns and the countryside prior to treatment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The energy expended by companies in carrying out their business is a commercial matter for the individual companies concerned. However, the Department is concerned that energy is used as efficiently as possible and encourages companies to consider energy 132
  efficiency to reduce their consumption. Indeed, for many years my energy efficiency office has actively promoted the take-up of efficiency measures through initiatives such as the best practice programme. It offers advice and guidance on reducing energy consumption to industry, commerce and the domestic sectors. A number of publications aimed specifically at reducing energy consumption in the water industry are available from the Energy Efficiency Office and the water research centre. Some of the material from the EEO was produced in conjunction with the centre and with water companies such as South West Water.

  Combined heat and power is one element of the programme that the EEO encourages wherever it is cost-effective. This is a very efficient and environmentally friendly option and is particularly suited to the water industry as it can use the sewage gas produced as a by-product from the treatment of sewage to produce electricity and useful heat. Thus the sewage itself could produce the electricity required to pump the sewage prior to and after treatment.

  Subsistance Allowances
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure the subsistance and car allowances for elected representatives in local government are not lower then those provided for justices of the peace; and if he will discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of the taxation of councillors' subsistance allowances.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently reviewing the ceilings on councillors' travel and subsistence allowances in the light of the recommendations of the working party on internal management. The tax treatment of such allowances is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine.

  Consultation Papers (Responses)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of responses to the consultation paper, "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies"; how many responses supported the proposals; and what is the highest number of responses received to a consultation paper of his Department.

  Sir George Young
  In total we have received over 9,000 responses to the consultation paper. Our proposals cover a range of issues, and the more considered the responses have addressed each separately; consequently there is no simple distinction between those supporting the proposals and the remainder.

  My Department has on occasions received substantially more representations on other matters of widespread interest.

  Cable Laying
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to investigate the effect of increased cable laying on street trees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The effects of cable laying on street trees will be illustrated in guidelines which should be published
  133
  later this year. With the assistance of my Department, these guidelines are being drawn up by the utility and arboricultural associations, and will provide constructive advice on how to ensure that cable laying results in the least possible damage to trees.

  Vacant Local Authority Houses, Leeds
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the most recent figures he has for the total number of local authority houses vacant in Leeds; and what proportion of these are management lets.

  Sir George Young
  The latest available information reported by Leeds city council shows that 1,454 of its dwellings were vacant at 1 April 1993; some 62 per cent. of these were management vacants—that is, dwellings available for letting immediately or after minor repairs.

  Metal Recycling
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made on the effect of forthcoming waste management regulations on the asset base of the metal recycling industry;

  (2) what representations he has received on the effect of the intended waste management regulations on the asset base of the metal recycling industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received representations on this matter from the secondary metals industry. The waste management licensing regulations will require holders of waste management licences to remain responsible for discharging the conditions of the licence until the condition of the site, insofar as it arises from the handling of waste carried on at the site, is such that the licence may be surrendered. If a licensed metal recycler carries out his activities in such a way that the condition of the land is unlikely to cause pollution or harm to human health then there will be no bar to the surrender of a licence and the realisation of the asset value of a site. If pollution or harm is caused or is likely, that might be expected to affect the asset value of a site irrespective of the provisions of waste law.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each of the deregulation task force's recommendations as they affect the metal recycling industry indicating whether the Government have accepted the recommendations or not; and in the case of acceptance of the recommendations, what action the Government intend to take.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the application of article 11 of the EC framework directive on waste in exempting metal recycling from licence provision in each of the member states.

  Mr. Atkins
  Article 11 of the EC framework directive on waste permits member states to make exemptions from permits for activities involving the recovery of waste, including metal recovery, subject to provisos directed at the protection of the environment. It is for each member state to decide how to implement the provisions of the 134
  directive. My Department does not hold detailed information on relevant national law in other member states.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the effect of describing waste management licences issued to recyclers of non-ferrous metals as metal recycling licences; and how the conditions for the issue of metal recycling licences will differ from those attached to the issue of waste management licences.

  Mr. Atkins
  The waste management licensing regulations will require persons who recover waste, including waste non-ferrous metal, to do so under a waste management licence, except insofar as their activities may be exempted under the regulations. I have accepted the suggestion of the secondary metals industry that those waste management licences authorising the recovery of metal should be described as "metal recovery licences" to help to focus attention on the distinctive features of the industry. The Government will be issuing advice in a waste management paper on the conditions appropriate to licences for metal recovery.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures he has taken or will take to meet the obligation under the Basle convention article 4(2a) to ensure that the generation of hazardous waste within the United Kingdom is reduced to a minimum taking into account social, technological and economic aspects;

  (2) what measures he has taken or will take to meet the obligation under the Basle convention article 4(9a) to ensure that transboundary movement of hazardous waste will be allowed only if the United Kingdom does not have the technical capacity, necessary facilities or suitable disposal sites to dispose of the wastes in an environmentally sound manner;

  (3) how he will ensure that exporters of hazardous waste comply with the obligation under the Basle convention article 4(8) and article 4(10) to which the United Kingdom becomes a full party on 8 May, to ensure that hazardous waste exported for recycling before 31 December 1997 is managed in an environmentally sound manner; which United Kingdom authorities will be responsible; what guidance he plans to issue to exporters and the relevant authorities; who will carry the costs of meeting this obligation; what extra resources will be made available to the relevant authorities; and what action he will take to prevent waste shipments where the exporter has not yet demonstrated that he can meet the obligation;

  (4) what redress will be available in the United Kingdom from the date when the United Kingdom becomes a full party to the Basle convention to those harmed by hazardous waste exports from the United Kingdom before 31 December 1997 which are not managed in an environmentally sound manner, in contravention of the Basle convention article 4(8).

  Mr. Atkins
  On waste minimisation I would refer the hon. Member to chapter 23 of "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy", Cm 2426, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The hon. Member may have misinterpreted article 4(9) of the Basle convention. I would refer him to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of that article, which are equal

  135
  in weight to sub-paragraph (a). Sub-paragraph (b) allows for the movement of wastes where they are required as a raw material for recycling or recovery industries in the state of import; and sub-paragraph (c) allows for waste movements which are in accordance with other criteria to be decided by the parties.

  The obligations of the Basle convention will be implemented in the European Community by council regulation EEC 259/93. As regards the hon. Member's reference to paragraphs (8) and (10) of article 4 of the Basle convention, I have nothing to add to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) on 2 March, Official Report, column 714, and my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 30 March, Official Report, columns 866-67.

  The Government aim fully to comply with their obligations under the Basle convention to require that hazardous wastes or other wastes exported from the United Kingdom are managed in an environmentally sound manner.

  River Thames
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional funds he expects to be devoted to projects or events which he has so far publicised in respect of the River Thames in London; and under whose auspices they will be spent and managed.

  Sir George Young
  In relation to the Thames festival, a steering group which is chaired by Clive Priestley, chairman of the London Arts Board and includes representatives of London First, the London Council for Sport and Recreation, the Sports Council, the Department of the Environment and others will shortly be considering a feasibility study and business plan for the festival, including its funding and overall management.

  Announcements will be made shortly about the funding and management of the preparation of the Thames study and feasibility study for the Thames cycle route.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what specific matters in respect of the Thames in London he has consulted the London Rivers Association.

  Sir George Young
  The London Rivers Association was formally consulted in March 1993 on the Government's approach to the east Thames corridor. Officials have also met the association for a general discussion on Thames issues. In addition, the London Rivers Association has been formally consulted about a number of issues connected with the work of the Thames working group chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has already had concerning his suggestion for events relating to the Thames in 1995; and what statutory duties he or his Department have for the Thames in London(a) directly and (b) indirectly through statutory bodies.

  Sir George Young
  The Department of the Environment in association with the London Arts Board, the London Council for Sport and Recreation, London First, the National Rivers Authority and others is assisting with the preparation of a feasibility study for a Thames Festival in 1995.
  136
  Apart from any functions conferred by local enactments, the Secretary of State has the same direct responsibilities towards the Thames as for other rivers.

  The Department has an indirect statutory duty through the preparation of planning policy advice which the London boroughs have to take account of in preparing their unitary development plans and in exercising development control.

  The Department also has responsibility for determining applications under the town and country planning legislation that may come before my right hon. Friend on appeal or call-in.

  The Department of the Environment also sponsors the National Rivers Authority, which is responsible for pollution control, flood defence and water resources management of the River Thames in London. The NRA also has duties in relation to conservation and recreation and is responsible, upstream of Teddington lock, for navigation and fisheries management.

  Energy Savings Trust
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for funding the Energy Savings Trust.

  Mr. Atkins
  The intention is that funds for schemes sponsored by the Energy Saving Trust will continue to be derived principally from electricity and gas tariff consumers.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for the promotion of energy conservation schemes by the Energy Savings Trust, as set out in paragraph 3.36 of "Climate Change, the UK Programme", Cm 2427.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that the Energy Saving Trust is to announce its strategic plan shortly.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, columns 661-62, what has been done with the balance of the capital receipt from the sale of county hall, London, which was not distributed to the London boroughs and the City of London.

  Mr. Baldry
  At the end of 1993, in accordance with the terms of the London Government Reorganisation (Capital Money) (Greater London) (Amendment) Order 1993, the London residuary body distributed to the London boroughs and the City of London all its capital money, including capital receipts received up to the end of November.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, columns 661-62, what reasons underlay his decision to refuse to disclose the sum received from the sale of county hall, London, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are not party to the sale of county hall. The terms of the sale—including the sale price—were and remain confidential between the London residuary body and the purchasers.

  North Sea
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the quality status report on the North sea.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am placing copies in the Library today. Copies of six reports produced by the United Kingdom on sub-regions of the North sea are also being placed in the Library.

  HM Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans have been made to close any of the regional offices of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Atkins
  No plans have been made to close any of the regional offices of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Energy Savings Trust
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Director General of Ofgas about the funding of the Energy Savings Trust.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware of the Director General of Gas Supply's views about the use of the E factor arrangements to fund incentive schemes facilitated by the Energy Savings Trust, and officials from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are currently reviewing the position with the Office of Gas Supply.

  Rent Levels
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the average rent levels in local authority housing for 1994–95, broken down into separate authorities.

  Sir George Young
  This information is taken from local housing authorities' own returns, which are currently being sent to my Department. It will be placed in the Library at the earliest opportunity.

  Radioactive Waste (Dumping at Sea)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out an explanation for the inclusion at paragraph 14 of the description of vote 5 of class VII supply estimates for 1994–95 on central environmental services, of a potential expenditure arising from the indemnification by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority of certain ship owners in respect of third parties arising from dumping of radioactive waste at sea.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of the potential expenditure were laid before the House in a minute dated 17 August 1978, Cmnd. 7316, a copy of which is in the Library. The liability, previously contained on a token subhead, has, since the minute was first presented, been replaced by the reference in paragraph 14 of the introduction to class VIII, vote 5. The reference relates only to potential claims form persons in countries which are not parties to the Paris convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy. The United Kingdom ceased sea dumping of radioactive waste in 1982.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement setting out the purposes of the single regeneration budget and those constituent schemes which it encompasses.

  Mr. Baldry
  The single regeneration budget is intended to improve local areas and enhance the quality of life of local people by tackling need, stimulating wealth creation and improving competitiveness. It will encourage local partners to come together to plan a strategic approach to these needs and priorities. The programmes which are included in the budget are as follows:

  From the Department of the Environment

  Estate Action

  Housing Action Trusts

  City Challenge/Urban Programme

  Urban Regeneration Agency

  Urban Development Corporations

  Inner City Task Forces

  City Action Teams

  From the Employment Department

  Programme Development Fund

  Education Business Partnerships

  Teacher Placement Service

  Compacts/Inner City Compacts

  Business Start-Up Scheme

  Local Initiative Fund

  TEC Challenge

  From the Home Office

  Safer Cities

  Section 11 Grants (part)

  Ethnic Minority Grant

  Ethnic Minority Business Initiative

  From the Department of Trade and Industry

  Regional Enterprise Grants

  (plus English Estates, to be subsumed into English Partnerships)

  From the Department for Education

  Grants for Education Support and Training (part)

  Lakes (Rescue Services)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what rescue facilities exist on large lakes; and what support is offered by the Government to rescue services on large lakes.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  Rescue facilities on large lakes vary locally. My Department does not provide support to rescue services but marine district safety committees, which cover the whole of the United Kingdom, have been carrying out a wide-ranging review of the way in which responsibilities for safety, rescue and accident prevention are presently distributed.

  Water Filtering Equipment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what chemicals involved in the production of water filtering equipment, referred to in his letter of 22 March to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, may be diverted to military use.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  Possible military uses of the chemicals approved in the United Kingdom for addition to the water supply for the purposes of purfication are in the table:
  139

  Chemical

  Use in water purification

  Possible military use

  Calcium Hypochlorite

  Disinfectant

  None known

  Chlorine

  Disinfectant

  Historically this has been used as a 'poison gas'.

  Chlorine Dioxide

  Disinfectant

  None known

  Hydrogen Peroxide

  Disinfectant

  If the concentration is greater than 85 per cent. then it may be used as a fuel additive.

  Sodium Chlorite

  Disinfectant

  None known

  Sodium Hypochlorite

  Disinfectant

  None known

DEFENCE

  North Korea
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the impact of the situation in North Korea on British defence policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are monitoring the situation in the Korean peninsula closely, and share the concerns of the international community over North Korea's nuclear programme.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the role of British forces in Bosnia.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I continue to receive a wide range of representations from a variety of sources on this subject.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with General Sir Michael Rose regarding the situation in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  During his visit to Bosnia last month, my right hon. and learned Friend met Lieutenant General Sir Michael Rose and was fully briefed on the situation in Bosnia, and again subsequently. The achievements of the United Nations and General Rose in securing a ceasefire in Sarajevo for the first time in two years, and the subsequent ceasefire in central Bosnia, are to be highly commended.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit Bosnia to discuss the need for the deployment of further forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced the deployment of a further 900 troops to Bosnia in his statement to the House on 10 March,Official Report, column 397. He has since visited the former Yugoslavia and had discussions with United Nations commanders there about a variety of issues, including troop deployments.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops and backup forces are currently involved in the United Nations operation in Bosnia; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently some 3,300 British service men deployed on the ground in the former 140
  Yugoslavia, with a further 3,000 based offshore and in Italy, engaged in operations in support of UN Security Council resolutions. The additional cost of their deployment is estimated to be around £125,000,000 for the financial year 1994–95, some of which is recoverable from the UN.

  D-day Anniversary
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preparations are being made by his Department over the 50th anniversary of D-day.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is organising the official military commemorations of the 50th anniversary of D-day under the chairmanship of my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. These commemorations were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 January and brief details have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fleet Maintenance
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the amount of fleet maintenance work available to HM royal dockyards over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Aitken
  As my hon. Friend is aware, fleet maintenance involves work carried out on front line units during operational time and does not include refitting. Little such work is, therefore, undertaken at the royal dockyards. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ban fox hunting in the defence forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although fox hunting is not a recognised sport in any of the three services, certain hunts have licences to hunt over MOD land.

  Army (Size)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the size of the British Army.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 8 February 1994,Official Report, column 134.

  Defence Capability
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the United Kingdom defence capability is sufficient to safeguard the realm and to respond to NATO obligations and United Nations demands.

  Mr. Hanley
  The assessment of the balance between commitments, capabilities and resources is a continuous activity within the Ministry of Defence. "Defending Our Future", the 1993 statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm 2270), set out our assessment of the tasks our armed forces are called upon to undertake and the capabilities we deploy. The Government remain confident that the armed forces are able to carry out the broad spectrum of
  141
  operations which they currently undertake: for our own protection, contributing to collective defence with our allies through NATO, and promoting our wider security interests through support for the maintenance of international peace and stability.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet his Western European Union counterparts to discuss future policy relating to the middle east.

  Mr. Hanley
  Whilst my right hon. and learned Friend regularly meets his WEU counterparts, future policy relating to the middle east is not currently on the agenda for the next planned meeting.

  Aero Engine Capability
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on national defence of maintaining an independent aero engine capability in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  A viable and effective aerospace industry makes an important contribution to the defence interests of this country. The implications of any proposed change in the ownership of any substantial defence industry capability would be considered if and when it arose.

  Grade1

  Registered disabled2

  Per cent. of staff in grade

  Non-registered disabled2

  Per cent. of staff in grade

  Ethnic Minority3

  Per cent. of staff in grade

  Women

  Per cent. of staff in grade

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  4.4

  —

  —

  2

  4.4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4.3

  5

  —

  —

  4

  1.4

  13

  4.4

  16

  5.4

  6

  —

  —

  9

  1.8

  10

  1.0

  20

  4.0

  7

  3

  0.2

  63

  3.2

  32

  1.6

  123

  6.2

  TOTAL STAFF4

  1,352

  1.1

  2,986

  2.4

  1,956

  1.6

  39,173

  32.0

  1Grades 1-7 and equivalent grades.

  2Figures based on responses to voluntary disability surveys.

  3Figures based on response rate of 93 per cent. non-industrial and 84 per cent. industrial to voluntary ethnic origin survey.

  4Non-industrial and industrial staff.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Greville fanner, dated 12 April 1994:

  Grades 2-5

  Grade 6

  Per cent.

  Grade 7

  Per cent.

  All grades

  Per cent.

  (a) Women

  0

  2

  (4)

  9

  (6)

  458

  (18)

  (b) From ethnic minorities

  0

  0

  —

  1

  (0.7)

  23

  (0.9)

  (c) Disabled

  0

  0

  —

  2

  (1.4)

  24

  (1.0)

  Note:

  Only those registered as disabled are included in line (c).

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Greville Janner, dated 12 April 1994:

  Grade

  Registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Non-registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Ethnic minority2

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Women

  Percentage of staff in grade

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  20.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dedicated Attack Helicopter
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had recently concerning the acquisition of a dedicated attack helicopter.

  Mr. Aitken
  When appropriate, I have discussed our current plans for the acquisition of the attack helicopter with colleagues and officials. The assessment of the bids received last November in reply to the attack helicopter invitation to tender is currently under way and detailed consultations would not be appropriate at this stage.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall, in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Aitken
  The number of women, disabled and ethnic minority staff in grade levels 1 to 7, and overall, are given in the table. These figures exclude casual staff and our executive agencies, the Defence Research Agency and the Meteorological Office. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  The figures below give the information for the Meteorological Office, as requested in your recent Parliament Question:

  In his written reply to your Parliamentary Question on the numbers of women, people from ethnic minorities and disabled people working in MOD, the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying directly to you in respect of the Defence Research Agency. The information you request is as follows:
  143

  Grade

  Registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Non-registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Ethnic minority2

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Women

  Percentage of staff in grade

  5

  —

  —

  1

  2.5

  —

  —

  1

  2.5

  6

  —

  —

  7

  3.2

  —

  —

  3

  1.6

  7

  —

  —

  24

  2.7

  14

  1.6

  35

  4.0

  TOTAL NON-INDUSTRIAL

  53

  0.7

  187

  2.5

  108

  1.4

  2,054

  27.5

  1 Based on responses to voluntary disability surveys.

  2 Based on responses to voluntary ethnic origin surveys.

  Statistics on the 1,878 Industrial staff cannot be obtained without
  disproportionate cost and administrative effort.

  Nuclear Test Victims
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met ex-British service personnel nuclear test victims to discuss compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I met nuclear test veteran representatives on 17 January 1994. My Department would consider compensation for any British test veteran whose death or illness had been caused by radiation from the atmospheric nuclear tests. The report of the National Radiological Protection Board published in December 1993 did not however find any overall excess of death or malignant disease among test veterans, and concluded that participation in the nuclear test programme has had no effect on life expectancy or on the risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases.

  Defence Staff, Washington
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 571, if he will place in the Library a detailed breakdown by grade and function of the support staff to the British defence staff, Washington; and if he will give details of posts lost since April 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Annex A

  British Defence Staff (Washington) Support Costs

  Rank

  Service

  Posts

  Function

  Grade 7

  CIV

  1

  PS

  CIV

  1

  Atomic Coordination Office

  EO

  CIV

  1

  AO

  CIV

  1

  SQN LDR

  RAF

  1

  WG CDR

  RAF

  2

  CDR

  Navy

  1

  SRO

  CIV

  1

  Defence Intelligence Liaison

  SGT

  RAF

  1

  CPL

  RAF

  1

  AO

  CIV

  2

  PS

  CIV

  1

  CPL

  Army

  2

  MAJ

  Army

  3

  W01

  Army

  1

  British Army Staff

  Typist

  CIV

  1

  US3

  LEC

  1

  SGT

  Army

  1

  CDR

  Navy

  7

  CPL

  MAR

  1

  PS

  CIV

  2

  British Navy Staff

  AO

  CIV

  2

  Typist

  CIV

  1

  US4

  LEC

  1

  144

  Rank

  Service

  Posts

  Function

  CPL

  RAF

  3

  PS

  RAF

  1

  SGT

  RAF

  1

  Typist

  CIV

  1

  Royal Air Force Staff

  US4

  LEC

  1

  WG CDR

  RAF

  4

  WO

  RAF

  1

  Grade 7

  CIV

  13

  CDR

  Navy

  2

  WG CDR

  RAF

  1

  FS

  RAF

  1

  US4

  LEC

  7

  LT COL

  Army

  2

  MAJ

  Army

  1

  Defence, Science and Equipment Staff

  PS

  CIV

  2

  Typist

  CIV

  1

  LT CDR

  Navy

  1

  AO

  CIV

  1

  SEO

  CIV

  1

  SEC

  CIV

  2

  US4

  LEC

  2

  Defence Sales

  SPS

  CIV

  1

  Driver

  LEC

  1

  PS

  CIV

  2

  LT CDR

  Navy

  1

  SPS

  CIV

  1

  SGT

  RAF

  2

  PS

  CIV

  1

  Central Staff

  LT COL

  Army

  1

  LT COL

  MAR

  1

  MAJ

  Army

  1

  WG CDR

  RAF

  1

  CAPT

  MAR

  1

  AO

  CIV

  1

  Total

  101

  Posts Disestablished since April 1990

  Rank

  Service

  Posts

  Function

  Typist

  CIV

  1

  Atomic Coordination Office

  SPTO

  CIV

  1

  Atomic Coordination Office

  EO

  CIV

  1

  British Navy Staff

  SEO

  CIV

  1

  Defence Sales

  US5

  LEC

  1

  Defence Sales

  Typist

  CIV

  1

  Central Staff

  Total

  6

  Belize
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when 2 Gurkha Rifles will leave Belize; and where the battalion will be based when this regiment withdraws from Belize.

  Mr. Hanley
  2 Gurkha Rifles completed its tour in Belize at the end of March 1994 as originally planned. The
  145
  battalion has returned to Cassino Lines Hong Kong and will merge in June-July 1994 with 6 Gurkha Rifles to form 1 Royal Gurkha Rifles.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he is making to maintain helicopter support from the Army Air Corps and the Royal Air Force for the jungle warfare training which will continue to be conducted by British Army units in Belize.

  Mr. Hanley
  The three Army Air Corps Gazelle helicopters currently in Belize will be used in support of the jungle training of British Army units when the British Army training support unit is established on 1 October 1994.

  Anti-tank Helicopter
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent invitation to tender for the British Army anti-tank helicopter requirement was extended to the South African Atlas Denel corporation and the involvement of Her Majesty's Treasury; and what effect he expects this to have on the date of final selection.

  Mr. Aitken
  Atlas Aviation, part of the Denel Corporation, submitted an unsolicited bid last November in response to my Department's invitation to tender for the Attack Helicopter. After preliminary assessment, and discussions with the company, it was decided that it should have access to the invitation to tender to allow them to put its bid on the same footing as the five solicited bids. This was a matter for MOD and Her Majesty's Treasury was not involved. Steps have been taken to minimise the effect on programme timescales, including strict conditions on the timing and quality of the Denel-Atlas bid. The impact on the date of final selection should be minimal.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in what way, and at what time, the fact that items exported to Saudi Arabia as part of the Al Yamamah agreements were not subject to export licence controls was made known to Parliament;

  (2) in what way, and at what time, the fact that items exported by Royal Ordnance as part of Defence Sales Export Organisation deals were not subject to export licence controls since 1981 was made known to Parliament.

  Mr. Aitken
  The fact that the Crown cannot licence itself is self-evident.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government of Saudi Arabia were made aware that items exported to that country as part of the Al Yamamah agreements would not be subject to export licence controls.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government of Saudi Arabia are aware that defence equipment supplied under the Al Yamamah arrangement is subject to the normal foreign policy and defence criteria.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the items covered by the Al Yamamah contracts were subsequently exported.
  146
  Mr. Aitken
  All the items covered by the Al Yamamah contracts have been or will be exported.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he maintains stocks of anthrax vaccine, including penicillin-resistant anthrax vaccines.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details relating to all vaccines giving protection against biological warfare agents are classified.

  Ferranti International plc
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether new orders have been placed by his Department with Ferranti International plc since it went into receivership.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the countries of destination of items sold by Royal Ordnance as part of the Defence Sales Export Organisation's contracts with Crown status since 1981.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our policy to provide details of defence exports.

  Housing Trust
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms of reference and the funding provision for his Department's housing trust.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Household Division Officers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers in the Household Division received their secondary education in the public sector.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give as a percentage defence expenditure compared to gross domestic product for the period 1979 to 1983 and for the period 1989 to 1993; and if he will make a statement on the implications for the long-term defence of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Percent

  1977–78

  4.6

  1978–79

  4.5

  1979–80

  4.6

  1980–81

  4.9

  1981–82

  5.0

  1982–83

  5.2

  1983–84

  5.2

  1989–90

  4.0

  147

  Percent

  1990–91

  4.0

  1991–92

  4.2

  1992–93

  3.9

  1993–94

  (forecast) 3.7

  Notes:

  1. Figures include exceptional expenditure on Falklands/Gulf conflict but exclude Gulf burdensharing contributions from other Governments

  2. Figures from 1978–79 take account of the technical changes in the treatment of Armed Forces and civilian pensions.

  The Government does not consider any fixed percentage of GDP as being appropriate for defence expenditure. As we demonstrated in "Defending Our Future" the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates, defence spending is set at a level which balances commitments, capabilities and the availability of resources.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 132, what action he has taken to reconsider evidence in relation to the alleged destruction of marsh Arab settlements, since the film of aerial observation of Iraq was shown by his Department to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest information about the scale of Iraqi Government military action in southern Iraq; and what response he is making.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are monitoring the situation closely with our coalition allies, taking account of new information as it becomes available. We believe that the evidence shows that the systematic destruction of the settlements and habitat of the marsh Arabs is continuing, in contravention of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which commercial bodies or organisations representing commercial interests have had use of the royal yacht since 1990; on what grounds; on whose authority; and at what cost.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1990 the royal yacht has been used by commercial bodies and by non-governmental bodies representing commercial interests by, singly or jointly, the following organisations:

  British Gas

  British Invisibles

  General Council of British Shipping

  Indo-British Partnership Initiative

  London Forum

  London First

  Scottish Financial Enterprise

  Scotch Whisky Industry

  The royal yacht may be used to promote British exports and attract inward investment to the United Kingdom, on the authority of Buckingham palace and the Cabinet Secretary. All additional costs were paid for by the organisations concerned.

  Service Children's Education
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about action the Service Children's Education Association intends to take regarding critical HMI/Ofsted reports on private and independent schools benefiting from the service children's boarding school allowance scheme.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Service Children's Education Authority will send copies of HMI/Ofsted reports to parents with children at the schools concerned.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many pupils at private and independent schools are benefiting from the service children's boarding school allowance;

  (2) how much the service children's boarding school allowance scheme has cost his Department in 1993–94; and if he will give his estimate for 1994–95;

  (3) if he will list the amount of money being spent by his Department under the service children's boarding school allowances scheme and each of the private and independent schools benefiting from the scheme;

  (4) if he will list the names and location of the private and independent schools receiving moneys from the service children's boarding school allowance.

  Mr. Hanley
  For the spring term 1994, boarding school allowance—BSA was claimed in respect of a total of 13,608 service children. Some of these attend schools in the state sector and numbers of just those attending private and independent schools could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure on BSA for the financial year 1993–94 is currently estimated at £133,360,000. It is not possible to provide an estimate for financial year 1994–95 at this stage as total expenditure will reflect both the rate of BSA and the total number of children in respect of whom it is claimed. A list of schools attended by the children of BSA claimants is not compiled annually. I am arranging, however, for a copy of the most recent version which was compiled in 1992, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Service Children's Education Association to send to parents of the children at Finborough, Rodney and Lime House schools the recent HMI/Ofsted reports on that school.

  Mr. Hanley
  I expect the Service Children's Education Authority to send the reports on Finborough and Lime House schools to parents before the end of April. It is not intended to distribute the report on Rodney school which relates to an inspection that took place in 1991, and is regarded by the Department of Education as being out of date.

  Defence Land Agency

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the circumstances which led to the arrest of Charles Ellis and Roger Pannell from the Defence Land Agency, by his Department's police; and on what date the arrest took place.

  Mr. Hanley
  I confirm that the Ministry of Defence police are investigating certain activities concerning
  149
  disposal of MOD property in south-west England. Several arrests were made in August and September 1993 but as yet no charges have been laid. An MOD employee has been suspended from duty while inquiries continue. As the MOD police have yet to complete their investigation it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) of 31 January,Official Report, column 551, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested can be provided only for the last two years; information for earlier years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I will write accordingly to the hon. Member in the near future.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information technology consultants his Department has employed; and for what purpose and at what total cost for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department does not centrally maintain the details sought on information technology consultants; the answer to this question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Jordan
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total gross value of exports to Jordan under successive memoranda of understanding regarding Government to Government special export deals.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to give the value of orders placed under such Government agreements.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many main battle tanks formed part of the exports to the Kingdom of Jordan under the memorandum of understanding arms export deals with the Kingdom of Jordan.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the established practice of successive Governments not to release information about individual defence exports.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if 155 mm shells were exported under the memorandum of understanding with the Kingdom of Jordan.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence exports. However, certain information about the contracts placed under the Jordan defence package has been made public during oral evidence given to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. Exceptionally, therefore, I can provide the information the hon. Gentleman requests. No 155 mm shells were exported under the memorandum of understanding with Jordan.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of artillery fuses and propellant were exported under the memorandum of understanding on arms export deals with the Kingdom of Jordan.
  150
  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence exports. However, certain information about the contracts placed under the Jordan defence package has been made public during oral evidence given to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. Exceptionally, therefore, I can provide the information the hon. Gentleman requests. No artillery fuses were exported under the memorandum of understanding with Jordan.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff or employees of International Military Services Ltd. have been transferred to other companies.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the company.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which contracts formerly held by International Military Services Ltd. have been sold, disposed of, or transferred, to other companies.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the company.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received that arms or arms related exports by International Military Services Ltd. or the Defence Export Sales Organisation have been passed to countries or destinations other than the stated end-user.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the existence of any such reports.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which assets formerly held by International Military Services Ltd. have been sold, disposed of, or transferred to, other British companies.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the company. All shares in IMS Ltd. remain the property of the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the affairs of International Military Services Ltd. were subject to scrutiny by the defence internal audit teams.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. Its accounts are audited by Price Waterhouse which is appointed on an annual basis. The National Audit Office has access to the books and records of the company.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which years since 1981 the global provision for statutory liabilities in respect of IMS Ltd. was drawn down; and in respect of what sums.

  Mr. Aitken
  There has been no such draw down.

  Anti-tank Missiles
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he placed the most recent orders for anti-tank missiles; and what studies are being undertaken into the design, availability and performance of future anti-tank missiles.

  Mr. Aitken
  The most recent orders for anti-tank guided missiles were placed as follows:SWINGFIRE final follow-on order; contract placed November 1987. TOW OTA (Overhead Top Attack) modified missiles; contract placed October 1987.
  151
  The United Kingdom continues to participate in the development of third generation anti-tank guided missile programmes—both medium range and long range—known as TRIGAT, in collaboration with European partners. Proposals for the United Kingdom's future attack helicopter are being evaluated which include a long-range anti-tank missile system. In addition, studies are being undertaken into future technologies for anti-tank missiles beyond the turn of the century.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the benefits or privileges extended to arms or arms related exports as a result of Crown status.

  Mr. Aitken
  Arms or arms related exports having Crown status are all subject to exactly the same foreign and defence policy considerations as exports carried out under an export licence.

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 470, whether Royal Ordnance or Defence Export Services Organisation were asked to supply information as to end-users in respect of arms or arms-related exports having Crown status.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what computer systems his Department have brought in, for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case if the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Aitken
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministers in his Department were approached to sign public interest immunity certificates in connection with the Matrix Churchill trial and declined to do so.

  Mr. Aitken
  No Minister in my Department has declined to sign a public interest immunity certificate in connection with the Matrix Churchill trial.

  Polaris Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what method his Department will dispose of the propellant inside Polaris missiles when they are scrapped.

  Mr. Aitken
  Propellant contained within surplus Polaris components is already being disposed of, by burning, in an environmentally safe manner.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments have been made in(a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside since October 1993.

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

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what are the estimated costs to his Department of abolishing the qualifying benefit rules for disability working allowance.

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not readily available. The cost would depend on the nature of any alternative qualifying test, the way in which any such test was applied, the number of people who decide to take up work or change their pattern of work, and the levels of earnings and other income.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability working allowance claims have been disallowed for reasons of income higher than the appropriate level; how many of these claims had weekly incomes above this level of (i) up to £1, (ii) between £1 and £2, (iii) between £2 and £5, (iv) between £5 and £10, (v) between £10 and £15 and between £15 and £20.

  Mr. Hague
  Since March 1992, 3,371 claims have been disallowed because income is in excess of the appropriate level.

  The remaining information is not available in the form requested.

  Family Credit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of those couples in Scotland who were in receipt of family credit in 1993–94, received family credit for(a) 26 weeks only, (b) 52 weeks only and (c) more than 52 weeks;

  (2) what percentage of those lone parents in Scotland who were in receipt of family credit in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94, received family credit for (i) 26 weeks only, (ii) 52 weeks only and (iii) more than 52 weeks;

  (3) what percentage of those couples in Scotland who were in receipt of family credit in 1992–93, received family credit for (a) 26 weeks only, (b) 52 weeks only and (c) more than 52 weeks.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested for 1992–93 is in the table. The figures for 1993–94 are not available.

  Awards of family credit in Scotland for 1992–93, broken down by family type and the percentage who received family credit for (a) 26 weeks only, (b) 52 weeks only and (c) more than 52 weeks.

  Number of weeks

  Couples Per cent.

  Lone parents Per cent.

  26 weeks only

  60.57

  51.19

  52 weeks only

  27.11

  32.64

  More than 52 weeks

  12.32

  16.17

  TOTAL

  100

  100

  153
  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of family credit recipients as at 1992–93.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many and what percentage of all Scottish children aged(a) under five years and (b) five to 15 years from two-parent families were in families which were in receipt of family credit in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94;

  (2) how many and what percentage of all Scottish children aged (a) under five years and (b) five to 15 years from lone-parent families in Scotland were in families which were in receipt of family credit in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  The information for 1992 is in the table. Figures for 1993–94 are not available.

  Children in Scotland in families in receipt of family credit1

  Two parent families

  One parent families

  All families

  Number

  Aged under 5 years

  16,260

  8,940

  25,200

  Aged 5 to 15 years

  34,220

  30,320

  64,540

  Percentage

  Aged under 5 years

  6.0

  16.8

  7.7

  Aged 5 to 15 years

  5.7

  29.4

  9.2

  Total children in Scotland2

  Aged under 5 years

  273,147

  53,194

  326,341

  Aged 5 to 15 years

  595,818

  103,253

  699,071

  1 Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of family credit recipients as at June 1992.

  2 Figures obtained from the General Register Office for Scotland as at June 1992.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many couples in Scotland claimed family credit in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94;

  (2) how many lone parents in Scotland claimed family credit in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available. Information on the number of recipients of family credit in 1992 and 1993 is in the table.

  Number of Family Credit cases in Scotland

  Two parent families

  One parent families

  All families

  May 1992

  21,860

  25,100

  46,960

  May 1993

  24,660

  32,180

  56,840

  Notes:

  These figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of family credit recipients as at May 1992 and May 1993. Information on claims is not available.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the take-up rate by women claiming family credit enhanced payments of £28 for the purpose of child care payments in respect of working mothers.

  Mr. Hague
  We expect that the take-up rate of those eligible for the maximum help with child care costs of £28 a week in family credit will be virtually 100 per cent.

  Pensioners (Fuel Bills)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will tabulate the financial assistance available to each category of retirement pensioner in respect of value added tax on fuel bills.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Category of pension

  Weekly amount of extra help towards VAT on fuel1

  A

  0.50

  B

  0.50

  B (lower rate)

  0.20

  C

  0.20

  D

  0.20

  1 Relates to standard rates of pension.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new applications for invalidity benefit have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in the Doncaster district in each of the last 12 months.

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

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the transitional arrangements for people who are receiving invalidity benefit will also apply to people who do not receive benefit but have an underlying entitlement to invalidity benefit at the point of change.

  Mr. Hague
  There will be transitional arrangements for those people entitled to invalidity benefit when it is replaced by incapacity benefit in April 1995. The arrangements will apply to people entitled to, but not receiving, invalidity benefit at the point of change.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts affecting local government that have been introduced by his Department since 1990.

  Mr. Hague
  The following Acts of Parliament affect local authorities either as employers or as administrators of social security benefits:

  Social Security Act 1990

  Social Security (Contributions) Act 1991

  Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991

  The Social Security and Benefits Act 19921

  The Social Security Administration Act 19921

  Disability (Grants) Act 1993

  Social Security Act 1993

  Pension Schemes Act 19931

  Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994

  Social Security (Contributions) Act 1994

  1 These Acts were Consolidated Acts and were handled by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated costs to his Department of bringing forward entitlement to long-term incapacity benefit to the first day of incapacity for people who are terminally ill.
  155
  Mr. Hague
  We estimate that this would cost around £3 million per annum.

  Notes:
  Estimate expressed in 1993–94 prices, and net of offsetting changes in income related benefit expenditure.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to ensure appropriate assessment of the needs of people with mental illness who may be eligible for incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  We are seeking the advice of a number of experts in mental illness in designing the new, more objective medical test as it relates to the particular problems of people with mental illness. The proposed arrangements will be evaluated over the summer. When the new test is applied to a person with a diagnosis of mental illness, information and advice will be sought from the claimant's doctors. This will include the claimant's psychiatrist, if one is involved in the case.

  Claimant Families
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of claimant families in Scotland in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the precise form requested as it is only available on a regional basis for certain benefits. Information on benefit recipients for 1993 is not yet available for some benefits. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Further information on the numbers claiming social security benefits for Great Britain as a whole can be found in the Social Security Departmental Report, Cm 2513, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Benefit

  Number to nearest thousand

  Year ending

  (a) 1992–93

  Child benefit

  619,000

  December 1992

  Community charge benefit

  142,000

  May 1992

  Family credit

  47,000

  May 1992

  Guardians allowance

  1239

  December 1992

  Housing benefit

  145,000

  May 1992

  Income support

  143,000

  2May 1992

  Invalidity benefit

  16,000

  4 April 1992

  Maternity allowance

  2,000

  4 April 1992

  One parent benefit

  92,000

  December 1992

  Retirement pension

  1,000

  March 1992

  Severe disablement allowance

  1,000

  4 April 1992

  Widows benefit

  7,000

  March 1992

  (b) 1993–94

  Disability working allowance

  1115

  May 1993

  Family credit

  57,000

  May 1993

  Guardians allowance

  1247

  December 1993

  Income support

  146,000

  3May 1993

  Retirement pension

  1,000

  March 1993

  Widows benefit

  7,000

  March 1993

  1 Exact figures.

  2 Annual enquiry.
  156
  3 Quarterly enquiry.

  Notes:

  1. Claimant families have been interpreted as families with dependent children.

  2. Housing benefit and community charge benefit recipients may receive other benefits. Families include dependents under age 17.

  3. Income support families include dependents under age 19.

  4. Invalidity benefit and severe disablement benefit only include families with child dependency increase in payment.

  Asylum Seekers
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to the Exchequer of giving social security and benefits and other benefits to those who are also seeking political asylum.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated annual cost of paying income support to asylum seekers is £102 million. Records are not held on their claims to other benefits.Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1993.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants there are currently seeking political asylum; and how many are also successfully claiming social security.

  Mr. Hague
  At the end of February 1994 the estimated number of applications for asylum outstanding was 47,100.1 The number of asylum seekers claiming income support was 37,000 in May 1993, the latest month for which statistics are available.2
  Source: 1Home Office
  2Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1993

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the number of households containing both individuals of pensionable age and other individuals not of pensionable age.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1990–91—the latest year for which information is available—an estimated 680,000 households contained both persons over pension age and persons under pension age.

  This estimate derives from the 1990–91 family expenditure survey.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the exclusion from payments by the social fund with respect to medical, surgical, optical, oral or dental items.

  Mr. Hague
  The social fund does not provide for these items which are primarily the responsibility of the national health service. There are no plans to review the current arrangements.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over the age of 60 years receive(a) the higher rate and (b) the lower rate mobility component of the disability living allowance; and what is the latest estimate of the number of people aged over 60 years entitled to claim the mobility component of disability living allowance who do not do so.

  Mr. Hague
  The numbers of people over the age of 60 years who receive the higher and lower rate mobility components of disability living allowance are 424,000 and 19,000 respectively.

  Information is not available on the number of people aged over 60 who are entitled to claim the mobility component of disability living allowance but do not do so.

  Note:
  Source: DSS Analytical Services Division. Based on a 5 per cent. extract of payload at 30 November 1993.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of people over the age of 60 in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance use it under the motability scheme towards the cost of hiring or buying a car.

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

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what year rate rebates, community charge benefit and statutory sick pay started to be counted as part of the public DSS departmental expenditure.

  Mr. Hague
  Expenditure on rate rebates, community charge benefit and statutory sick pay have been included in DSS departmental expenditure figures since 1982–83, 1989–90 and 1990–91 respectively.

  Pensioners' Income
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioner couples receive income of at least(a) £30 and (b) £89.90 a week from (i) an occupational pension, (ii) income from savings and (iii) both occupational pension and income from savings.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  Income

  £30 or more Per cent.

  £56.10 or more Per cent.

  Occupational pension

  42

  20

  Income from savings

  31

  13

  Occupational pension and income from savings

  58

  33

  Notes:

  Estimates are based on data drawn from the Family Expenditure Survey for 1990–91 and the Government Actuary's Department's Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of recently retired single pensioners receive income of at least(a) £20 and (b) £56.10 a week from (i) an occupational pension, (ii) income from savings and (iii) both occupational pension and income from savings.
  158
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the table:

  Income

  £20 or more Per cent.

  £56.10 or more Per cent.

  Occupational pension

  42

  18

  Income from savings

  27

  14

  Occupational pension and income from savings

  57

  34

  Note:

  1. Estimates are based on data drawn from the Family Expenditure Survey for 1990–91 and the Government Actuary's Department's Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes.

  2. Recently retired single pensioners are defined as women aged 60–64 and men aged 65–69.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of single pensioners receive income of at least(a) £20 and (b) £56.10 a week from (i) an occupational pension, (ii) income from savings and (iii) both occupational pension and income from savings.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the table:

  Income

  £20 or more Per cent.

  £56.10 or more Per cent.

  Occupational pension

  31

  13

  Income from savings

  21

  10

  Occupational pension and income from savings

  46

  24

  Note: Estimates are based on data drawn from the Family Expenditure Survey for 1990–91 and the Government Actuary's Department's Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of recently retired pensioner couples receive income of at least(a) £30 and (b) £89.90 a week from (i) an occupational pension, (ii) income from savings and (iii) both occupational pension and income from savings.

  Mr Hague
  The information requested is in the table:

  income

  £30 or more Per cent.

  £89.90 or more Per cent.

  Occupational pension

  47

  23

  Income from savings

  35

  14

  Occupational pension and income from savings

  63

  37

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on data drawn from the Family Expenditure Survey for 1990–91 and the Government Actuary's Department's Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes.

  2. Recently retired pensioner couples are defined as those in which the husband is aged 65–69.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the proportion of pensioners receiving income from savings identified as(a) all pensioners, (b) single male pensioners aged under 75 years, (c) single female pensioners aged under 75 years, (d) pensioner couples aged under 75 years, (e) single female pensioners aged 75 years or over, (f) single male pensioners aged 75 years or over and (g) couples where at least one partner is aged 75 years or over, and the median amount received.
  159
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the table:

  Pensioner group

  Proportion receiving income from savings

  Median weekly amount received by those in receipt

  percentage

  £

  (a) all pensioners

  75

  9.00

  (b) single male pensioners under 75

  69

  13.50

  (c) single female pensioners under 75

  71

  5.10

  (d) pensioner couples under 75

  83

  11.20

  (e) single female pensioners, 75 or more

  71

  4.70

  (f) single male pensioners, 75 or more

  75

  9.60

  (g) couples where at least one is 75 or more

  84

  9.20

  Notes:

  1. These estimates derive from the Family Expenditure Survey for 1990–91. The amounts are at January 1991 prices.

  2. Pensioner couples are those where the husband is over state pension age.

  Rent Rebates
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest proportion of total expenditure on rent rebates, in percentage and cash terms, paid to tenants with weekly rents of (i) £20 and under, (ii) up to £30, (iii) up to £40, (iv) up to £50, (v) up to £60, (vi) up to £70 and (vii) £70 and over.

  Mr. Hague
  The latest available information is in the table.

  Rent rebate ranges of eligible rent (£ per week) May 19921

  Proportion of housing benefit expenditure

  Per cent.

  250p–£20

  4

  £20.01–£30

  41

  £30.01–£40

  34

  £40.01–£50

  11

  £50.01–£60

  5

  £60.01–£70

  2

  Above £70

  3

  Data source: The housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent sample of May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Details of rent paid are not available, therefore, the information relates to the amount of rent eligible for housing benefit.

  2. Housing benefit is not payable below 50 pence per week.

  3. The percentages cannot be correctly applied to expenditure figures to produce cash amounts.

  Annual average real growth rates in benefit expenditure1 1978–79 to 1992–93

  1978–79 to 1992–93

  1978–79 to 1983–84

  1983–84 to 1986–87

  1986–87 to 1989–90

  1989–90 to 1992–93

  Total benefit expenditure

  3.5

  4.8

  3.5

  -2.3

  7.6

  Contributory

  1.6

  2.2

  2.3

  -1.9

  3.5

  Non-contributory

  6.4

  9.3

  5.2

  -3.0

  12.8

  1 Based on table 2 in "The Growth of Social Security" excluding rate rebates and community charge benefit, and including the cost of child tax allowances.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 334, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  Mr. Hague
  I have arranged for such information as is available to be placed in the Library.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what computer systems his Department has brought in for what function, and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department meets its information technology requirements through the services of the Information Technology Services Agency.

  The key systems brought in during the last five years were delivered under the framework of the operational strategy. The cost of individual operations cannot be accurately disaggregated.

  Information on the work carried out by ITSA is available in its business plans which are held in the Library.

  Savings Disregard
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) of 14 March,Official Report, column 479, if he will now raise the savings disregard to £4,000.

  Mr. Hague
  The level of the capital disregard is kept under review, but there are no current plans to increase it.

  Turker Ahmet
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will receive a reply to her letter of 7 March concerning Turker Ahmet.

  Mr. Hague
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 8 April.

  "The Growth of Social Security"
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will recalculate table 2 of "The Growth of Social Security", excluding rate rebates and community charge benefit, and including the cost of child tax allowances in 1978 to 1989.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the table.

  Service Pay
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Child Support Agency justifies including the X factor in service pay when assessing serving personnel.

  Mr. Hague
  The X factor forms part of the basic pay for all members of the armed forces, irrespective of rank or location. The Child Support Act 1991 defines earnings as any remuneration or profit received from employment, including any bonus, commission, royalty or fee. This clearly includes the X factor, which is, therefore, taken fully into account in the calculation.

  Income Support
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients in each age group will become eligible for top-up payments to bring them up to the income support level after 11 April; and what will be the cost to public funds.

  Mr. Hague
  As income support is an income-related benefit, which provides financial help to people who are not in full-time work to bring their income up to a level prescribed by Parliament, it is often paid to top up other income received by claimants. More than half those claiming income support have other income—such as benefits, maintenance, part-time earnings, notional income from capital—taken into account when assessing their entitlement to benefit.

  The most recent information that is available is in the table. Only the recipient's income has been used to produce the table. Income from partners or dependants has not been counted.

  Income support recipients average IS by age Recipients with other income brought to account

  Age of recipient

  Number of cases

  Total weekly IS (£)

  Average weekly IS (£)

  16–19

  52,000

  2,800,000

  52.77

  20–29

  523,000

  35,600,000

  67.97

  30–39

  462,000

  36,900,000

  80.00

  40–49

  232,000

  18,600,000

  79.98

  50–59

  124,000

  8,700,000

  70.21

  60–69

  296,000

  10,500,000

  35.61

  70–79

  505,000

  15,000,000

  29.74

  80 and above

  676,000

  37,000,000

  54.75

  All cases

  2,871,000

  165,100,000

  57.52

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of cases have been rounded to the nearest thousand, total IS amounts to the nearest hundred thousand pounds. Average amounts of IS are correct to the nearest penny.

  2. Figures may not sum to the totals given due to rounding.

  3. An IS recipient may have a partner's or dependent's income taken into account in the assessment. Such income has not been used in compiling the table above; only the recipient's income has been counted.

  4. Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1993.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support who were studying less than 21 hours per week had benefit withdrawn under(a) availability for work criteria or (b) actively seeking work criteria in the latest year for which he has information; and how many such students had benefit restored after appeal.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available.

  Rents
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of expenditure on rent allowances, in percentage and cash terms, was paid to tenants with weekly rents of(a) £20 and under, (b) up to £30, (c) up to £40, (d) up to £50, (e) up to £60, (f) up to £70, (g) up to £80, (h) up to £90, (i) up to £100 and (j) £100 and over.

  Mr. Hague
  The latest available information is in the table.

  Rent allowance ranges of eligible rent (£ per week) May 19921

  Proportion of housing benefit expenditure Per cent.

  50p to £202

  3

  £20.01 to £30

  14

  £30.01 to £40

  23

  £40.01 to £50

  18

  £50.01 to £60

  11

  £60.01 to £70

  8

  £70.01 to £80

  5

  £80.01 to £90

  5

  £90.01 to £100

  3

  Above £100

  9

  Data source:

  The Housing Benefit Managment Information System Annual 1 per cent. sample of May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Details of rent paid are not available, therefore, the information relates to the amount of rent eligible for housing benefit.

  2. Housing benefit is not payable below 50p per week.

  3. The percentages cannot be correctly applied to expenditure figures to produce cash figures.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total sum of rents determined as reasonable for housing benefit subsidy for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The total sum of rents determined as reasonable by the rent officer service for housing benefit subsidy for the 1992–93 financial year for England and Wales is £2.245 billion.

  The information in the form requested is not readily available for Scotland.
  Note: Figure quoted rounded to nearest million.
  Source: Rent officer statistics (first quarter 1993 and financial year 1992–93) Department of the Environment.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account the Child Support Agency takes of the earnings of a second wife in respect of a father's maintenance payments for children of his first marriage where the second wife has young children of her own first marriage for whom she does not receive maintenance from their father.

  Mr. Hague
  The calculation of the amount of maintenance an absent parent is required to pay is based on his own income and essential expenditure. The assessment takes account only of a new partner's income to the extent that she is able to contribute to the costs associated with
  163
  bringing up children of the new relationship, which are otherwise taken into account in full against the absent parent's allowable expenses.

  The only other way the income of a new partner affects the assessment is in the calculation of protected income. This calculation looks at all of the income and outgoings of the new family to ensure that the payment of maintenance does not reduce their resources below a prescribed level.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to require the Child Support Agency to take account of child-minding fees when assessing maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Under the formula which the agency uses to calculate maintenance, the basic maintenance level for children already includes an amount to recognise their need to be cared for by an adult. This amount depends on the age of the youngest child to be maintained and reduces as that child grows older.

  There is no specific allowances for child-minding fees against the income of an absent parent who is bringing up children, but the formula is designed to ensure that all absent parents keep a substantial proportion of their net income after paying maintenance so that they can meet essential expenditure.

  Country

  Expenditure on Social protection (millions) in national currency

  Expenditure per thousand population (millions)

  Expenditure on Social Protection (millions) converted to pounds sterling at March 1994 exchange rates

  Expenditure per thousand population (millions) converted to pounds sterling at March 1994 exchange rates

  Canada

  127,481

  4.8

  62,216

  2.3

  USA

  832,000

  3.3

  559,140

  2.2

  Japan

  50,944,000

  412.3

  331,106

  2.7

  Australia

  49,187

  2.9

  23,367

  1.4

  Austria

  450,327

  58.3

  25,791

  3.3

  Denmark

  240,898

  46.8

  24,581

  4.8

  Finland

  39,166

  7.9

  4,765

  1.0

  France

  1,822,000

  32.3

  214,353

  3.8

  Germany

  654,750

  10.6

  263,258

  4.3

  Italy

  314,896,000

  5,453.0

  129,480

  2.2

  Netherlands

  165,206

  11.0

  59,135

  3.9

  Norway

  191,559

  45.0

  17,688

  4.2

  Portugal

  1,446,275

  146.7

  5,623

  0.6

  Spain

  10,525,000

  270.2

  51,135

  1.3

  Sweden

  462,359

  54.0

  39,383

  4.6

  United Kingdom

  126,757

  2.2

  126,757

  2.2

  Sources: Quarterly National Accounts No. 4, 1993, OECD.

  Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts 1980–1991, Eurostat.

  Note: Figures are only available for OECD countries compiling national accounts on a quarterly basis and are based on countries' own national accounts data without adjustment for national definitions to System of National Accounts standards. No direct comparisons should therefore be made between the countries as the data provides only an approximate indication of magnitude.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what legal advice has been obtained concerning proposals to introduce regulations applying an habitual residence test to the payment of benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department's legal advisers have been consulted on the proposals.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the amount of money spent on social security per thousand of population and the total amount spent on social security in the United Kingdom and in each of the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: The table provides information for selected OECD countries and the United Kingdom on the amount of money spent on social protection per thousand of population and the total amount spent on social protection. It is customary to use social protection, which includes public health care costs, personal social services and compulsory occupational pensions as well as social security for international comparisons.

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

Prisoners and Benefit Claims
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are proposing to take in response to reports that some prisoners have been claiming unemployment and other benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, we introduced new procedures at the beginning of March to check the benefit records of all prisoners and take appropriate action where fraud is suspected.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is it true that six years ago Ministers were warned about the fraud? Can my noble friend say whether the computers within the DSS and the Home Office are compatible or is it illegal for computrs to talk to each other?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we became aware of the problem last September and have been working on it. In March this year, we ran a cross-check of all sentenced prisoners against benefit records. It indicated that 2,600 prisoners had received some benefit payments during the past year and since entering prison. Investigations have been opened on 1,450 of those cases where benefit is still being paid. Procedures are now in place to check benefit records of all newly convicted prisoners; those procedures will in the future include the use of information technology. All the cases of fraud are being investigated. In each case prosecution will be considered and recovery pursued. Efforts are being made to catch and charge any accomplices.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not the case, however, that the National Association of Probation Officers reported fraud in 1988, as the noble Baroness mentioned? Why is it that the DSS only appears to have taken action in the past six months?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have taken action in the past when fraud has been brought to our attention and there have been successful prosecutions. The recent survey, matching all records of prisoners with the records in the Contributions Agency, went a stage further than we had been able to go previously.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, although there seems to be no real evidence, does it not appear, according to what I have read, that there have been occasions when employees and their employers have been conniving so that those employed can draw unemployment benefit?
1380
There seems to be no hard evidence but from responsible reports it seems that it may be worth examining the matter.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are investigating allegations of involvement by third parties, including allegations of involvement by employment service staff. Of course, in many cases the prisoners themselves do not benefit from, and may be unaware of, the fraud. It may be carried out by third parties without the prisoner's knowledge. However, I can assure the House that we are investigating all the cases that have come up and will prosecute any cases where we are able to do so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is this not just another example of the failure to computerise the administration of prisoners, as recommended in his report in the early 1980s by Lord Justice May? Is my noble friend aware that recently, if one asked the prison service where a prisoner was, the only information was "the last recorded address" of the prisoner. The service did not even know in which prison every prisoner was. Are all prisoners now on a single computer register? Does that register show the national insurance numbers of prisoners?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, all I can tell my noble friend is that on 3rd March there were 34,428 sentenced prisoners serving sentences in the 127 prisons in England and Wales. There is also a turnover of around 1,500 sentenced prisoners entering and leaving prison each week; that is apart from remand prisoners. I can tell my noble friend that liaison between the Contributions Agency and the prison service has not been adequate in the past and that steps have been taken to address the problem so that the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency are notified of the names of new inmates when they enter prison.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it is not a matter of prison records but of records of the social security payments system? If there were an automatic means of identifying people on the payments system through the national insurance number of any person who had been given a prison sentence, we would not have the problem in the first place. We could stop it arising.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure that one necessarily knows a person's national insurance number when that person is sentenced. However, when anyone receives a sentence, the prison service now informs the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency of that person's name, address and national insurance number, if the service knows it. That is then checked against the records.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any system at all under which the centralised, computerised records of prisoners are sent to the relevant department that pays unemployment benefit? Is there a system? And how does it work?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that there was not a system. The parts of the

1381
existing system that were in place did not work as well as they should have done. There is a system now. We hope that it will work better so that information can be passed on and that not only will departments talk to each other but also perhaps computers will be able to talk to each other.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Question mentions "unemployment and other benefits". Can the Minister say what those other benefits are and how substantial they are?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, they could be any benefits to which someone was entitled when entering prison. There are some benefits which prisoners are entitled to receive while in prison—for example, family credit. That is because entitlement is for a fixed period and is based on customer circumstances at the date of the claim. Housing benefit is also available in limited circumstances. For example, it may be paid where there is need to safeguard accommodation until a prisoner is released.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the Minister to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Is not the strength of the noble Lord's point reinforced by the inability of Home Office Ministers to give any adequate answers about the number of prisoners returning late from leave? If there were an adequate computer system, perhaps we might get better answers out of the Home Office.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, for as long as I have been in this House I have felt that the one thing upon which one can always rely is my noble friend Lord Ferrers giving an adequate answer at the Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, do the "other benefits" include constant attendance allowances?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. I believe that people get "constant attendance allowance" free of charge while they are in prison!

Drama Schools: Funding
2.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that drama schools are as much national education providers as music and visual arts conservatoires.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we consider it desirable that there should be a range of public and private education and training provision designed to meet the needs of students. Drama schools have an important role to play nationally in providing diversity and choice, as do the music conservatoires and visual arts institutions.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that
1382
several leading members of the theatrical profession are concerned about the discretionary awards system? Does she feel that some local authorities could be doing more to help?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that I am aware of that. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was visited by a number of very distinguished people, including the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, and Sir Anthony Hopkins. They had a very constructive meeting. My right honourable friend explained that he wished to give close consideration to the findings of the Gulbenkian survey which has recently been published, and that he would look at their representation in that context.
As to the other part of my noble friend's question, it is for local education authorities to determine their own priorities. But we are aware of anxieties about the decline in local authority discretionary awards for drama students in particular. Again, my right honourable friend will take that into account when he looks at the Gulbenkian survey. We hope that the local authorities will take note of it as well.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1987, 83 per cent. of local authorities made full discretionary awards, whereas last year the proportion had fallen to 39 per cent? Will the Minister agree that drama is one of the richest heritages of this country? It is a sphere of our national life for which we are held in very special esteem in the international community. Will she give an undertaking to the House that she will do everything within her power to ensure that all those students of calibre who want to attend drama school are able to do so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have said that it is a matter for local authorities to determine their own priorities. But I can also say that both the numbers of awards and the expenditure on awards have risen. In 1990–91 it was £209 million; in 1991–92 it was £239 million. Although there has been a slight drop by just over £1 million—it was £238 million in 1992–93, the latest year for which we have figures—that means that while the rise in the number of awards and the overall expenditure peaked in 1991–92, the amount of money that is spent is still higher overall than the amount that was spent in 1990–91. Whether it is a question of drama, music, catering, or any other subject, it must be a matter for local authorities to determine how to spend their money.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am encouraged by what my noble friend said earlier. But how does she justify a situation whereby those students who are in music conservatoires get funding from central government and a great deal of certainty in that way, whereas students at drama school are dependent upon the uncertainty of local government discretionary awards?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. The music conservatoires and the visual arts schools have a history of public funding. I believe that my noble friend may already know that. With present constraints on higher education student

1383
numbers and resources, there is no prospect of additional public funds for private drama schools. While any institution can apply to be publicly funded, we would certainly need some convincing at this time in regard to even more new applications from private establishments either for incorporation into further education or for designation into higher education. More fundable institutions would mean spreading more thinly the resources that are presently available to the funding councils.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, following the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will my noble friend agree that the provincial repertory theatre provides the cradle of experience from which so much of our great acting talent is both derived and developed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question. I cannot argue with the point made by my noble friend. The repertory companies on which I certainly cut my teeth—not as a performer but as a participating member of the audience—are very important to the world of theatre.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the discretionary awards from local authorities have fallen off in respect of drama schools. Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons may be that, while in musical conservatoires there are certain obvious attainments which students have to reach before they can be accepted, in drama schools there may be no such tests available at all? Is it possible that local authorities have in mind the advice given by Noel Coward some time ago: "Don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. I have sat on a discretionary awards committee in my own local authority. I know from the numbers of students who came forward for music awards and those who came forward for drama awards that it was much more obvious that there was recordable, measurable talent on the part of the music applicants than necessarily appeared on the part of drama applicants. That is not to say that people would not make very good use of the places. To put the matter in context, both discretionary and mandatory awards are being made to people studying drama, particularly vocational drama—performing arts. They are there in some numbers. We are talking here about additional and mostly private institutions to be added to the list.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I have noted the wonderfully high standard displayed during the "Young Musician of the Year" award. Would my noble friend give an assurance to the House that musical education will continue to have the highest priority in her department?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an absolute assurance on that point to my noble friend. This Government have made music a central subject in the national curriculum. We shall continue to support it as a compulsory subject in the national curriculum.
Lord Rix: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to explain what she means by "private" establishments for training in drama? Does she agree that the majority of drama schools could be classified as private?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the definition would be "that not provided by the state". There are many drama and performing arts departments in our universities and colleges which are state funded. I make the distinction between those and the privately funded establishments to which sometimes financially assisted students are referred.
Lord Rix: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a further question. Does the Minister agree that the majority of people who go to university to study drama are studying the theatre, whereas the majority of people who go to drama schools are studying to be actors? Does she further agree that it is the acting side of the profession which is worrying noble Lords in regard to discretionary grants?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is an important distinction to make when talking about acting. I am talking about the performing arts, which is an umbrella for music, dance and acting as well. But the private institutions often are vocational and about the craft of acting.

Computer Chips: Theft
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that special measures are needed to counter thefts of computer chips in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. We are not aware of any peculiarity about chips which would require special measures to be taken to provide against their theft.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that as these chips are small, valuable and equivalent to an international currency, a series of attempted robberies was to be expected—robberies such as the one in Greenock recently in which £2.5 million worth of chips were removed? While close co-ordination is needed between international police forces, can he say whether it is possible for manufacturers to leave identification marks on the chips so that they can be traced even after they are in computers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend quite rightly points to the fact that chips are small, valuable and might be used as an international currency. But so are diamonds and they are very much more readily tradable. My noble friend said that there had been an outbreak of stealing. In fact, there has only been one theft in this country, in Greenock. The police and Interpol have no knowledge of any concerted efforts being made to steal chips. My noble friend asked

1385
whether it was possible to identify the chips. My understanding is that there is the possibility for them to be marked and that is done, but they are marked in batches because chips are sold in batches. It is therefore not possible—or at least it is not done—to mark individual chips. When a chip is located it is possible to tell the batch from which it was purchased and where it was made. The business of the police then is to decide whether or not it has been stolen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of my earlier derogatory remarks about Home Office Answers, will the Minister accept from me that I entirely applaud his sturdy refusal to take specific action about theft of particular high value items? He is quite right that the law must cover all high value items and no special provision for particular items is desirable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord changes his colour like a chameleon. I am very grateful to him for agreeing with my Answer. I like to think that all my answers would be subject to the noble Lord's agreement, if only he would look at them in the right way.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, lest there should be any misunderstanding, will the Minister accept that my Question and supplementary question were not aimed at altering the law in any respect? Further to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the law must of course apply equally for all items. But the police are required to take special precautions when it is known that there will be attempts to steal specific items of property, particularly valuable ones. I stick to that. I thank my noble friend for his assurances. Will he continue to make sure that everything is done to stop a positive trade in stolen chips and the temptation for professional criminals to steal them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point. Of course the police will take steps if they believe that there are any concerted efforts being made to steal the chips. But that is not the case at the moment. A group, including representatives of the force in whose area there was recently a major theft and a number of major electronics companies with manufacturing bases in Scotland, has been operating since last year to try to provide crime prevention advice and collate intelligence on crime against the industry.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that I may not be the only Member of this House who would like to know from my noble friend what these computer chips are and why anyone wants to steal them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that somebody would ask a nasty question such as that. The fact is that a chip can be very expensive. I understand that when they are used in guided missiles they can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and carry out many different tasks. On the other hand, they can carry out only one action, in which case they cost 15p. Perhaps that is the type of chip that my noble and learned friend would
1386
purchase if he wished to have one. The fact is that chips contain silicon and a number of complicated bits and pieces which enable them to do many things which my noble and learned friend would not be able to do without such a wretched chip.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the negotiations between this country, Spain and Portugal, does my noble friend agree that the Government might be better looking after our fish than our chips?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a different type of question and a different type of chip.

Government Science Laboratories: Review
2.58 p.m.
Baroness White Baroness White asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the objections expressed by the Royal Society against the way in which the Office of Public Service and Science is handling its current review of the 53 government controlled science laboratories, announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 3rd March.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, following the White Paper Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, which foreshadowed that efficiency scrutiny, the terms of reference were announced on 2nd February and the bodies to be covered by the scrutiny team on 3rd March.
Baroness White: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Has she read the special press release on this matter issued by the Royal Society? It states:
"The current way that the scrutiny exercise is being conducted does not give us confidence that it can provide a secure basis for decision-making".
Is the noble Baroness aware of the emergency meeting for senior officers of our own parliamentary and scientific committee as they were going into Recess, to discuss with Sir Peter Levene and the Government Efficiency Unit their deep concerns as to the haste with which this scrutiny exercise has been conducted, the failure to consult any senior scientist and that the 90 working days which are to be allowed for public comment after the report is received —I understand that that is likely to be early in May—will bring us well into the Summer Recess? There is considerable anxiety in the scientific world as to the way in which the scrutiny is being conducted and how it will affect the work of thousands of our best scientists in government employ.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware of the press release to which the noble Baroness referred. I agree that it is a demanding timetable but we believe that it is achievable. I do not accept the other points made by the noble Baroness. It is an open exercise well foreshadowed in the White Paper and the terms of reference and the bodies that were to be subject to the review were subsequently announced.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor cannot in any way be accused of lack of openness. On 16th June

1387
1993 my right honourable friend informed Parliament that the scrutiny would be undertaken by the Efficiency Unit in conjunction with government departments. He gave quite clearly and openly the methods that should be used, and that also was made public. There is a feed-in from all the institutions and the scientists within them. The Chief Scientist, Professor William Stewart, will have an input into the exercise. Members from the Royal. Society have been to see Professor Stewart and corresponded with my right honourable friend, and their concerns will be taken into account. Finally, on each occasion my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that it would be normal practice for the Efficiency Unit reports to be published.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the magazine New Scientist when it makes the point that the public may not like the idea of a laboratory owned by the cattle industry advising Ministers on whether or not British beef is safe to eat after BSE? Can she assure the House that it will be impossible for such a situation to arise?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not always agree with the magazine New Scientist. However, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is an important one. This is an efficiency exercise and will not do anything to inhibit the mission of each of the bodies. If their mission is that they be required to give advice to any Whitehall department, then nothing in the efficiency reviews should inhibit their ability to do that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it not time that the Government thought again about whether efficiency is in fact efficient?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, extremely large sums of money are being spent on this aspect of research. It is important that the maximum possible efficiency is squeezed out of the system in order to ensure that the resources available go towards making sure that we have better science.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is anxiety that a reduction in the budget could result in the loss of several hundred skilled jobs? That would be a considerable loss to the country, to commerce generally and to the academic field. Can the Minister say whether there is any justification for that anxiety?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of the scrutiny team's work and the reports that will flow from it. However, the whole exercise is about making sure that every pound spent through these bodies or any subsequent bodies that arise from the scrutiny reports is spent to good effect. It is about extracting as much value as possible for the money that is spent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the idea of an Efficiency Unit in this Government is rather laughable? Is she further aware that 30,000 scientists are involved in the institutions which are being investigated by the
1388
Efficiency Unit? Is it the case that the team has told unions that because of the timetable there is no time to consult the unions at local level? What does that mean?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I totally refute the first comments of the noble Lord. Each of the establishments, the people within them and indeed the trade unions within them will have an input into the whole exercise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the, noble Baroness will kindly answer my last question. Have the unions been told that there will be no consultation at local level with trade unions because of the haste with which the exercise is being conducted?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what is appropriate at local level is that local people within the establishments have a proper input. At local level some of the members. of staff of the establishments will be trade union members. As always, input from trade unions will take place at national level.

Race Relations (Remedies) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The Teacher Training Agency]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Teacher Training Agency") and insert ("Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 22, 23 and 24 which are also in my name. Amendment No. 1 seeks to change the name of the agency proposed by the Bill from the Teacher Training Agency to the Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training.
I hope that your Lordships will not feel that it is too late in the day to attempt such a change, especially as there appear to be very good reasons for doing so and for accepting the rest of the amendments in this group. The main reason for accepting this group of amendments is that the Bill as it stands is unclear as to the powers which the agency will enjoy in perhaps the most vital area of its intended activity towards higher education on the one hand and school-based teacher training courses on the other. That vital area is accreditation.
At the moment it is not clear—despite, or perhaps because of, some of the amendments accepted in Committee—whether the power to accredit school-based teacher training courses (which, as I understand it, normally resides with the Secretary of State) has been passed via the new agency to institutions of higher education, whether it is to be shared by the institutions of higher education with the new agency or whether the

1389
Secretary of State still retains his power which, as the Bill now stands, could be shared with the agency and with the institutions of higher education as he sees fit.
I am not a lawyer. However, I was sufficiently worried as to exactly what the Bill said when it left Committee and Report proceedings that I took independent legal advice. That confirmed my impression that the Bill is in a muddle. Indeed, it would seem that the mover of the two amendments which were accepted at Committee stage and which caused some of the confusion to which I refer—or at least left the Bill less clear than it was before—may agree with me. I say that because new paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who successfully moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 68A during Committee proceedings, seeks to clarify the very point that I am making.
We shall be debating Amendment No. 4 later. It is sufficient to point out for the purposes of this group of amendments that Amendment No. 4 intends to put a duty on the new agency to ensure that all courses of initial teacher training provided by schools are accredited by institutions of higher education. I believe that that is what Amendment No. 4 seeks to achieve, though I am not sure that it does so as I shall mention when we come to debate it. Be that as it may, I have to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that he would not have tabled paragraph (a) of his Amendment No. 4 if he were entirely confident that all courses of initial teacher training were already to be accredited by institutions of higher education, and by no one else, under the Bill as it stands. Indeed, I believe he would be right not to entertain that confidence.
It came as something of a shock to me to realise—and I confess that I did not do so until I saw Amendments Nos. 62 and 68A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, tabled during our Committee proceedings—that the Bill as originally drafted did not make it clear that the new agency would indeed be vested with the Secretary of State's present power of accreditation in the same way as the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education now is vested with that power. I fear I was guilty of oversight, as perhaps were other noble Lords, because I understood from all the descriptive material circulated by the Department for Education that the new agency was to replace the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education—or CATE as she is known—and also the Teaching as a Career Unit, or TASC. I therefore assumed that the agency was to possess CATE's powers of accreditation.
This impression was formed by what was clearly in retrospect too casual a reading of the Bill, and particularly of Clause 13. Indeed, I have to suggest that Clause 13, even as it now stands, amended by Amendment No. 68A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, at our Committee proceedings, is not entirely clear in the area to which my amendments seek to bring clarity. I say that because, as your Lordships will be aware, Clause 13 deals with the qualification of teachers. As I understand it, it sets out the guidelines under which the Secretary of State may make regulations to confer the power to accredit courses on
1390
the new agency and perhaps others. It seems beyond doubt that those who successfully complete an accredited course achieve QTS—qualified teacher status —and we should remember that those who achieve QTS at our school-based courses will already hold a degree. But it is not clear from Clause 13 as it now stands whether the new agency may by itself grant QTS to a school-based course, perhaps with the Secretary of State's blessing, or whether it can only do so if the course is accredited by an institution of higher education.
On page 7, line 31 of the Bill—that is to say, the fourth line of Clause 13—we see that regulations "may" make certain provisions. I am advised that the word "may" is important and may have the effect of diminishing the strength of Amendment No. 68A in our Committee proceedings which seems to seek to ensure that all school-based courses have to be accredited by an appropriate institution of higher education. Be that as it may, the confusion appears to grow when we come to subsection (2) of Clause 13, which defines those people who may qualify for QTS. At the top of page 8 of the Bill as it now stands we see that this extends to those who have,
"successfully completed a course of initial training for teachers in schools at an accredited institution in England or Wales".
Clause 13 (2) goes on to define what it means by an accredited institution. In paragraph (c) it says:
"an 'accredited institution' means an institution accredited by the Teacher Training Agency or, in Wales, by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales as a provider of courses satisfying such criteria as may from time to time be specified by the Secretary of State".
Clause 13 (2) concludes by declaring:
"The above amendment shall not be taken as prejudicing the power"—
by that I assume the Bill means the power of the Secretary of State—
"to make further regulations revoking or amending the provision inserted"
That seems to me and those who advise me to cause further lack of clarity.
Perhaps I may pause there, with that part of the Bill in front of us, to explain my Amendment No. 24. This would extend the caveat which I have just quoted to both Clause 13 (2) and, very importantly, to Clause 13 (1). Following on from that—I apologise if I am taking my amendments in reverse order but since the confusion seems to intensify towards the end of Clause 13 as presently drafted it may be a logical way to do it—I come to my Amendments Nos. 23 and 22. These are intended to remove the duty which Amendment No. 68A may—I emphasise the word "may"—put on the new agency to ensure that all school-based courses would be accredited by an appropriate institution of higher education. That brings me to the heart of this group of amendments. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and those who have supported his amendments wish to perpetuate the virtual monopoly which higher education enjoys in training and educating teachers. I use the word "virtual" because I am not entirely sure whether the licensed and articled teacher schemes require the approval of higher education apart from the fact that potential teachers under these schemes do, I believe, have to have a degree.
The stranglehold of higher education on the training of our teachers is also not entirely complete, I am glad to say, when one considers the private sector. I am aware, for instance, that Eton wisely eschews anyone with a Bachelor of Education degree and has found that some of its best teachers are former businessmen with a reasonable degree but without what I regard as the negative experience of having had to undergo one of the postgraduate certificate of education courses offered by higher education.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would leave school-based courses free to be accredited by an institution of higher education but do not attempt to compel them to do so. Likewise, Amendment No. 13 would clearly bestow on the new agency the function of accreditation of eligible institutions. That is not to say that Amendment No. 3 would give a monopoly either, or anything approaching it, to the new agency. In practice, of course, the vast majority of school-based courses might well choose to go on working with, and even being accredited by, institutions of higher education. But the amendments would at least allow such courses not to be accredited by what I regard as the malign monopoly or quasi-monopoly of higher education. Also, the malignant nature of higher education teacher education departments would surely start to become more healthy, less biased, more genuinely academic and therefore more helpful to aspiring teachers than is at present the case if the institutions to which they are attached knew that the agency was in the background with the power to support school-based and other courses which wished to avoid higher education.
As I said, this really seems to me to be the heart of the matter. Do those who supported Amendment No. 68A and indeed Amendment No. 62 at our Committee stage really wish to see school-based teacher training remain as much as possible with higher education, or are they prepared to see at least some reduction of higher education's present quasi-monopoly? I would be most interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and other noble Lords who speak in the House for higher education in this regard, if they care to contribute to the debate on these amendments, as to exactly where they stand on what seems to me such a vital matter.
That brings me finally to Amendment No. 1 and my proposal that the name of the new agency should not be the Teacher Training Agency but should instead be the Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training. I apologise again for introducing such a novel concept so late in the day but it seems to me that the name of the agency as proposed by the Bill became inappropriate during our proceedings at Report stage. As a result of that debate my noble friend the Minister has tabled Amendment No. 27 today which brings the expression "teacher education" in line with the expression "teacher training", as currently used in the Bill. I imagine that the amendment will find favour on all sides of your Lordships' House, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has been one of the strongest advocates in our debates so far of the use of the expression "teacher education" as opposed to "teacher training". I trust that he will be supporting Amendment
1392
No. 27 when the time comes. By the same token I dare to hope that the noble Lord and others who support the use of the expression "teacher education" will agree that it should appear in the name of the new agency.
Certainly, the expression "teacher training" is not much in current use among the institutions and departments which purport to teach our potential teachers how to teach. The normal expression is "teacher education", often shortened simply to "education", which can be very confusing for the uninitiated. Indeed, even I, no friend, it will have been gathered, of our system of teacher training, believe that we should use the expression "teacher education" at least on a par with the expression "teacher training". However, my reasons for supporting its use may be somewhat different from those which have inspired the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
I support the use of the expression "teacher education" precisely because, alas, so many people who now enter—particularly our Bachelor of Education courses—do so with such poor qualifications at A-level that one has to suggest that they have not really completed any sort of adequate education which might equip them to be teachers. So I do not believe that it would do any harm to emphasise that there are aspiring teachers who still need to be educated rather than simply trained how to teach.
So that is the reasoning which got me as far as wanting to change the name of the proposed agency to the Agency for the Education and Training of Teachers. Then I thought that if we are changing It we might as well go the whole hog and make clear in its name what it is that—
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: My Lords, "go the whole way".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise to my noble and learned friend. I say the "whole way" or "all the way". The name should say what we want this agency to do, hence the name I suggest in Amendment No. 1. We want this agency to promote teacher education and training. Some of us—I trust most of us —also want us to be able to accredit courses leading to qualified teacher status. Taken together with the other amendments in this group to which I have now spoken, I believe that my suggested change of name would make the position very much clearer than it is at the moment in the Bill. I trust that other noble Lords may feel able to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps it may be helpful if, in responding to this amendment, I were to make a couple of observations. First, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. We are at Third Reading and he will only have one opportunity to speak from the Dispatch Box. I am minded to ask one or two questions which he might be minded to reply to later. Therefore, would he be willing to wait for those questions or should I give way during my speech to allow him to answer them?
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am always extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his guidance on these procedural points. I want to intervene at this moment if that is acceptable. There are two points as regards the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on which I would like to dwell for a moment or two. First, he will not be surprised when I say that I believe that there is a lot of merit in half of what he says about the title of the agency. I wish that he had given the House an opportunity to approach this in a slightly different way so that we could have taken seriously the point about "education" in the title. I commend him on having made that point because it is a good one.
Secondly, I want to make it quite clear, so that there is no misunderstanding, that as far as I and my noble friends are concerned, we see it as appropriate for the accreditation to remain with institutions of higher education. The noble Lord has obviously given this matter a great deal of thought. I would like him to consider for a moment some of the phraseology which he used in putting his case forward. He talked about the monopoly of higher education. That is a very misleading concept because within higher education there is a great variety of centres of higher education. I believe there will be very little difference between the two Front Benches as regards the importance of having that variety.
Therefore, where the preparation of teachers is being undertaken there will be a number of different institutions of higher education related to those centres which will be undertaking the accredited task. Therefore, there is not the monopoly in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, may have suggested that there might be. However, we feel that because of the importance of the professional status of teachers; and because of the very point which he made about the importance of education not only in subject matter, but in the process of preparing to be a teacher; and because of the need to have a demonstrable independence of ministerial diktat under a government of any persuasion, there is a great deal to be said for putting the accreditation clearly in the hands of the institutions of higher education. That is how we see it and how we interpret the amendments which have been put forward and approved by the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I find it very difficult to follow what my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is getting at. He is apparently concerned and worried—I suppose that if he is worried I should be too—but I do not understand what his worry is as regards the devolution of power of accreditation by the Secretary of State.
I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that that may be done by regulation and not primary legislation. There is no provision proposed for primary legislation to do this. If that is right then the Secretary of State retains total responsibility and is answerable in Parliament for what he has done under the regulation. For the life of me I cannot understand—no doubt somebody will explain—why a change of name from the TTA to an,
"Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training",
1394
could be conceivably relevant to resolving this problem of devolution and the effect that it will have.
I was totally unable to understand—again, as all your Lordships know, I do not know much about teacher training—what the monopoly of higher education was or is or whether it exists. I was gratified when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he did not understand it either. He did not use those terms, but of course he is far more diplomatic than I. He speaks from the Front Bench when I speak from the Back Benches and with a little more licence, perhaps. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, gives my noble friend half marks or half merit on the title. That was generous because in the circumstances it is not understood how there can be any merit in a proposition which could not produce any explicable result. As I cannot find any result perhaps somebody will explain what it is all about. For the life of me, I could not support any of these amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I at least am grateful to my noble friend for this opportunity for clarification which is one of the functions of Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for what he said, as far as he went. While I am still a little confused about what my noble friend proposes, I am a good deal more in the dark than I would wish to be about what will be the result, and what the Opposition intend to be the result of their amendments to the Bill at the previous stage. One can get a grasp of the general intention from what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said; namely, that there should be some form of diversity.
I seek to find out the extent to which the Secretary of State will be bound and the extent to which he will be free in this matter as regards the new amendment. I also seek to find out what balance the members of the Opposition think it is proper to hold between the training and education of teachers by higher education institutions and by other institutions such as schools and groups of schools which I believe are well qualified to carry them out. Yesterday I was at a conference of 100 teachers in a partnership of 11 primary schools. I was very much taken by their grasp of the issues about the proper management of schools and their fitness for bringing up others in their tradition, which is not the tradition which is so often attributed to teachers as a result of the activities of their collective leaders in negotiations and arguments with central government.
I hope to use this opportunity also to reassure your Lordships that the state of the profession as a whole is a good deal better than the state in which the profession is represented as being by the media as a result of the shrill and sometimes discourteous interventions of its leaders. But that is besides this point. What I was hoping to elicit from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and now, I presume, from the noble Baroness, Lady David, is further clarification of exactly what in their eyes we are sending to the other place.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this has turned into a rather complicated Bill. Some of us are not entirely clear exactly who is accrediting what as the Bill now stands. However, I do not feel that it becomes any

1395
clearer by changing the title of the agency in question. In fact, one of the few points of which we can grasp hold at present is that the agency in question is called the Teacher Training Agency, or TTA for short. It is not an agency for the promotion of Christian knowledge, or whatever, but it is suggested that it be called the Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training. However is one going to refer to such a body? If one uses an acronym, one gets APPETITE—APATET—or something of that kind, which makes me feel distinctly anorexic. It seems an absurd proposal. Whatever the agency's limitations as the Bill has been amended and whatever our doubts about its role, at least we can call it the TTA. If we were to amend the Bill as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, what on earth would we call the agency for short?
Although I fully understand that the noble Lord's intentions are for the best and that, with his other amendments, he is trying to clarify the role of the agency—I am sure that he is leading us in the right direction there—I cannot feel that the proposed amendment to the agency's title does anything but increase the obfuscation which surrounds the difficult issue of accreditation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with some of the questions that are buzzing around the Chamber at the moment. First, my noble friend Lord Pearson referred to higher education's monopoly of teacher training. That is absolutely true. Indeed, it is even more true under the Bill as now amended because higher education has full control over all courses through its accreditation rights. It has further control through compulsory participation in all courses. The amendment to the Bill now denies an opportunity to a consortia of schools which may wish to provide school-centred teacher training in their own right. My noble friend is absolutely right on that point.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was concerned about accreditation powers and whether they are enshrined in primary legislation. He is absolutely right: they are not. It is right that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have powers under the regulations. The powers for those regulations are provided in Clause 13. Those regulations would be used to confer accreditation powers upon the agency.
I concur with many of the positive remarks that were made by my noble friend Lord Elton about teachers and the teaching profession.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, says that accreditation is to remain with higher education institutions. However, accreditation cannot remain a function of higher education, as the noble Lord suggests, because higher education institutions have no such function at present. They were given such a function for the first time under an amendment to Clause 13, but that function is not defined. In fact, the function of the higher education institutions is merely added to a defined function of accreditation which the Bill already gives to the agency. It really does not make sense.
My noble friend Lord Pearson referred to accreditation and powers of approval. Currently, no one
1396
has the power of accreditation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the power of course approval which he exercises on the advice of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. As I have just advised my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, Clause 13 first allows the Secretary of State to confer the power of accreditation upon the agency through regulation and then goes on to confer it on the agency. Under Clause 13, the agency has a clear power of accreditation, although amendments have muddled the picture by giving a parallel power to higher education. I am referring to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had passed in this place. The whole thing is in a dreadful muddle.
However, I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to set on record yet again, at this final stage, the wide and important role of the Teacher Training Agency. I fully understand the spirit in which these amendments were moved and I hope that my noble friend will in due course equally understand the reasons why I cannot support their inclusion in the Bill.
If agencies, like Bills, had a long title as well as a short one, I could see the case for a formulation like that in Amendment No. 1—although not perhaps in exactly the same terms. We certainly want the agency to have a promotional role in the widest possible sense, ensuring that teacher training (including teacher education) grows and develops to meet the demands and needs of the nation for a thriving, well-trained teaching force. This goes wider than but encompasses the work of the Teaching as a Career Unit, to the work of which I have paid tribute in earlier debates. The unit has the current responsibility for promoting teaching as a potential career for those leaving school and university. That is important work. While there is no current problem over teacher supply, we are not complacent, and we need mechanisms in place to make sure that the supply of well qualified applicants to teacher training courses continues at the necessary level.
Promotion of teacher training in its wider sense—although I am not sure that this is immediately clear from the amendment—also involves ensuring that the best courses of training flourish and are adequately resourced for their vital role. It involves working to establish and preserve a network of high quality training institutions able to meet current needs and respond to future demands.
Most of that role is currently embedded within the wider responsibilities of the Higher Education Funding Council, but it is not something which it has been possible or appropriate for the council to pursue with great vigour. Promoting one aspect of higher education would not be consistent with the wider role of the funding council across all of higher education.
It is also because of the funding council's distinct remit that there is currently no single body required to look across the piece and apply on a consistent basis the same funding and quality judgments to schools and to higher education providing training. Schools must currently be funded separately by the Secretary of State himself.
Promoting both the demand for and supply of high quality training is therefore a key part of the agency's

1397
role. So also is accreditation. Clause 13 of the Bill gives the agency an accrediting power which will in due course replace the Secretary of State's current power to approve individual courses of teacher training.
There has been some confusion over current and intended powers and duties in this area, and I should like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. Currently, qualified teacher status—widely known as QTS—comes from completing a course approved for the purpose by my right honourable friend. The power of course approval is conferred by the teachers regulations, currently made under Section 218 of the Education Reform Act. It is exercised by the Secretary of State on advice from the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and Ofsted.
Clause 13 adds a new power for the agency to accredit institutions in its own right, and provides that all courses of teacher training at an accredited institution shall lead to QTS. In due course, once all institutions have been accredited, we shall no longer need the Secretary of State's course approval powers and shall be able to repeal that part of the current regulations.
The power of accreditation will be the agency's own, not exercised on behalf of my right honourable friend. The agency will have to use as a basis for accreditation the criteria published by the Secretary of State for this purpose, and will look at inspection evidence from Ofsted, but the decision as to whether to grant accreditation is the agency's alone. This all holds good whether or not there is any other body carrying out a parallel but undefined process of accreditation under the Bill as now amended, which, as I have said, makes a nonsense of the Bill as it now stands.
It is therefore clear, as I noted, that the long title proposed for the agency by my noble friend can be said to cover its most important functions and the way in which it draws together a group of linked activities now carried out by a range of separate bodies. It also reflects the fact that teacher training includes education. However, as noble Lords know, I shall be moving an amendment later to secure that all references to teacher training throughout the Bill include teacher education to put that beyond doubt.
So I welcome the spirit of Amendment No. 1 but feel that I must oppose its substance because, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn said, it would saddle the new body with a pretty unwieldy and possibly misleading mouthful of a name. As I have noted, it leaves "funding" embedded in the general descriptor of "promotion". If we are to go into this amount of detail, it would be odd not to see funding given its separate mention. And then what about research—the subject of later amendments? We do not want to devalue any part of the agency's role by singling out particular aspects for its title.
Difficulties over how fine to draw the detail on the face of a Bill are common in legislation and we have met them in many of our earlier debates. I believe that in this case the title we have given the agency covers all that is needed without fear of confusion and without seeming to prejudge the relative importance of any aspect.
1398
I must also oppose Amendment No. 3 for a rather different reason. It is certainly not necessary to give the agency the function of accreditation in Clause 1; it is given the power by virtue of Clause 13. Accreditation is therefore one of the functions referred to in Clause 1 as being conferred on the agency "by or under this part" of the Bill. That is beyond doubt.
The idea of promoting the reference to accreditation into Clause 1 certainly has a good deal to commend it. It will, as we have noted, be a major factor in the agency's work. But I am afraid that a free-standing reference to the function in Clause 1 such as Amendment No. 3 offers us would not work. We should need to do some more serious reshaping of the Bill so that the function of accreditation conferred in Clause 1 was defined in more detail in a later clause—in effect, disentangling Clause 13 which now both confers and defines the function. That would follow the model of the agency's functions as a funding body, which are conferred in Clause 1 but defined in detail in Clauses 6 to 10.
There would clearly not be time for us to make the necessary internal readjustments at this stage of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. Since the amendment is not necessary and would, for the reasons I have given, leave us with a defective piece of legislation, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw it and leave further reflection on this point for those in another place.
With Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 we turn to another aspect of the accreditation issue, namely, the degree to which higher education institutions should be involved in accreditation. I am grateful to my noble friend for his concern to clarify this important subject. Indeed I believe, as I shall seek to explain, that his amendments throw helpful new light on—although they do not resolve —tensions which stem from some amendments accepted by the House at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would have the effect within Clause 13 of providing that courses of initial training for schoolteachers may rather than must be accredited by an appropriate institution of higher education. If we replace "accredited" by "validated" (a point on which I shall have more to say later) that would be a fair reflection of our intended policy. We have always said during the debates on this Bill that there will be a continuing involvement of higher education institutions in initial teacher training, and indeed they will remain the monopoly providers of undergraduate training courses. But we have also argued that nothing should undermine the initiatives already under way, in which schools are able to form partnerships with one another to provide postgraduate courses, which are often but not always validated by higher education institutions.
We want schools to have the right to decide whether to work in partnership with, or have their courses receive a seal of approval from, a higher education institution. We look forward to a steady increase in school-centred training. Numbers will certainly grow beyond the current pioneers, in secondary schools in particular, though neither the Government nor the

1399
agency will be forcing schools to take on extra duties. The schools will have to meet the Secretary of State's criteria, meet Ofsted's inspection standards and meet the accreditation standard of the Teacher Training Agency.
Given all that, there is simply no need in the approach we have advocated for schools to pass a mandatory further test of approval by higher education.
My noble friend's Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are therefore in tune with our own thinking. But in tabling them he has highlighted what more would need to be done to ensure that schools have the rights I have described. To see this we need to look again at Clause 11(1) as amended in Committee.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would create the possibility that, as now, there can in future be school-centred courses that do not need to be accredited by a higher education institution. But, given Clause 11(1) as it stands, these amendments would not help. School-centred courses would still face the barrier of compulsory partnership with, and "accreditation" by, a higher education institution, albeit that that is superfluous to what is already in place. These amendments would add to, rather than overcome, a tension within the Bill.
As I mentioned, there is a further difficulty in that these amendments as drafted leave intact the notion which we currently find in both Clause 11 and 13 that higher education institutions can in principle accredit initial teacher training. As the Bill stands, both the Teacher Training Agency and higher education institutions have an "accrediting" role—the latter not defined in the Bill. That could be confusing. I believe it arises from the use in Clauses 11 and 13 as amended of the term "accredited" in respect of higher education, when a more appropriate term would have been "validation".
Validation and accreditation are distinct processes. Validation is an internal process within higher education, involving peer review of courses. It is the process of recognising a higher education course or programme as acceptable for the purposes of making an academic award. It is concerned with academic content and level and not with professional or practical skills. We should clearly welcome validation within higher education institutions for academic courses offered at degree level, but schools will be training students who have already graduated from courses validated by higher education.
It is as well to remember that there will be that important safeguard. Quite apart from anything else, it means that students will themselves be well placed to judge whether a course run by schools without higher education validation is the right course for them; and the way is clear for schools which wish to seek higher education validation. As I have said, however, we want them to have the choice.
So what is accreditation, which is what we intend the Teacher Training Agency to do? Accreditation is the official approval of a qualification as an acceptable preparation for entering a profession. It is therefore about vocational rather than academic matters, although the required standards for achieving the qualification, and therefore entry to a profession, may include
1400
academic skills and qualification. Indeed, the Secretary of State's criteria for initial teacher training stress the importance of subject competence, and we have now said in terms in this Bill that all successful trainees must be graduates by the time they enter the teaching profession. Those rules must be met if an institution is to be accredited and its successful students awarded qualified teacher status.
Accreditation in that sense must cover all providers of initial teacher training. We have proposed, on the advice of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, that accreditation in future should be of whole institutions, not individual courses. That view is widely shared and has been welcomed within higher education.
It is vital that institutional accreditation, as we have proposed, is performed by a body that is external to the institution offering teacher training. Unlike validation, it is not appropriate for there to be self-accreditation by the course providers, whether they be in higher education or in schools; and that is what the amendment would achieve. That would not give the necessary assurances about quality; and that is why we need a Teacher Training Agency to take the decisions, and not merely advise, on both accreditation and funding.
The amendments have helped to highlight the need to sort out a tension within the Bill as it now stands. We need to be clear that accreditation as we have defined it in the Bill is done solely by the Teacher Training Agency and that validation is the preserve of higher education institutions.
Unfortunately, the amendments do not themselves sort out that tension. In a sense they perpetuate it by leaving intact the reference to higher education institutions as accrediting bodies. There has not been time, since I saw these amendments last night, for me to consider some appropriate alternative government amendments. I believe that the tensions which remain in the Bill will have to be resolved in the other place, although this House will of course consider later this summer the results of that resolution.
As Amendments Nos. 22 and 23—while helpfully intended—would further confuse what I believe to be an already muddled picture, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw them.
Finally, turning to Amendment No. 24, I can assure my noble friend that I am advised that it is unnecessary and indeed would have an untoward effect on the Bill. This is because there is only one amendment set out in Clause 13(2), and the words which my noble friend seeks to amend refer only to what is in that subsection. On that basis, I hope that he will again feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I hope that my noble friend is satisfied with this response and will not therefore seek to press these amendments. I have certainly welcomed the opportunity to have a constructive debate on these issues to put on record what I believe to be the present state of the Bill, and to thank my noble friend in particular for allowing me to rehearse again for the benefit of the House the important roles to be played by the new agency.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I have found at least one issue on which we can agree. It is the importance of using the expression "teacher education". When the noble Lord, Lord Judd, goes on to confirm that he wishes as much of school-based teacher education as possible to be entrusted to higher education, he and I part company. He refers to the variety which exists in many centres of excellence in higher education. My experience of that area is that there is not nearly as much variety as one would like to see. Indeed, my experience on the Council for National Academic Awards led me to believe that there is not nearly enough variety in that area and that too many of these courses are too similar. It is largely for that reason that I strongly support school-based teacher training courses being able to be independent of higher education.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway opined that the Secretary of State retains full powers by regulation. He wondered what monopoly I was talking about—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that was a mistake. If I said that, I did not mean to do so. I said that the Secretary of State was retaining powers but was devolving them by regulation. In fact, he would retain responsibility although someone else would exercise the powers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. The problem is that at the moment the Bill is in a bit of a muddle in this area and my noble friend the Minister confirmed that.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew said that he was not clear what benefit there could be in changing the name. He asked what is in a name. I felt that at least by changing the name to what is suggested in Amendment No. 1, we would make clear to the world at large that this agency was to promote the education and training of teachers and also that it would have the power of accreditation.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew, who I am sorry to see is not in the Chamber, suggested that we might run into difficulties with the acronym that could come about. He suggested that the body might be called APETITE. I am afraid that I have thought of an acronym which might at first sight seem a little worse. If one were to include both the As in the middle of the suggested title and leave out the word "training" at the end, one might have APAATED, which might come near to sounding like "apartheid". However, I have to say to noble Lords that if the proposed agency acquired that name it might not be such a bad thing. I regard the situation in higher education towards teacher training as not being dissimilar to apartheid. There is something of a colour bar between the rest of higher education and teacher training. I think that the amendments that I proposed would do much to remove that.
Finally, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for agreeing with me that the Bill is in a muddle at this stage and at least welcoming the spirit of the
1402
amendments which I put down. I apologise for speaking at such length and for introducing such novel concepts, especially on Third Reading. I know that that is unusual in your Lordships' House but it is also unusual for a Bill which contains such a lack of clarity about one of its essential features to reach Third Reading in this House.
Despite what my noble friend the Minister said, it still is not clear to me at any rate who has what power to accredit school-based courses of teacher education and/or training. It actually is not clear to me any more what powers the Secretary of State has in regard to accreditation generally. I am fairly sure that he has the power to accredit courses of teacher education or training and that at the moment he allows CATE to exercise those on his behalf. But after what the Minister said, I am not as sure as I thought I was because I understand that the moment CATE accredits entire institutions or departments. Following the Minister's remarks, I am not sure whether this is a practice which has grown up for convenience or whether it is well-founded in law.
Be all that as it may, and although I accept that much of what I said may have seemed fairly obtuse, I hope that the debate will contribute to further consideration of the Bill in another place. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("exercise") insert (", in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 36. Perhaps at the outset I might be forgiven for saying that if in the process of our deliberations some small inconsistencies and confusions have arisen, I am certain that the combined efforts and expertise of the Department for Education and the draftsmen will be able to sort them out so as to ensure that in the other place there will be a possibility of giving effect to what is clearly the wish of this House on certain matters.
As regards Amendment No. 2, the Minister has recognised the important relationship between teacher education and training and higher education, not least with her acceptance that school-centred courses are postgraduate courses with the protection of the graduate status of teachers.
In Committee the Minister opposed the establishment of a sub-committee of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to provide teacher training. She argued that the teacher training agency would be a rationalisation of existing powers and responsibilities of the various educational quangos and the Secretary of State. In looking at Hansard, I am reminded that in Committee she said:
"The agency is also seen by some as an attack on higher education. Higher education is not in any way threatened by these proposals. It has a changing role, in partnership with schools. But it is not under threat".—[Official Report, 10/3/94; col. 1580.]
Furthermore, I see that on Report, in response to an amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, the Minister argued that Clause 9, as drafted, was:

1403
"designed to allow the range of funding bodies covering schools, and further and higher education in England and Wales, to work together where that would be more efficient or effective".— [Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 931.]
The teacher training agency takes over part of the funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. But as is acknowledged by the Minister, a special relationship between the two bodies will remain. Surely that relationship should be recognised on the face of the Bill, with consultation between the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the teacher training agency clearly required.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept Amendment No. 2. If she does not, whatever her intentions, there will he an anxiety that assurances that she has given during deliberations on the rest of the Bill are questionable because of a failure to make this an underlying priority spelt out in the early stages.
I turn to Amendment No. 7. Responding to an amendment tabled by me in Committee, the Minister said:
"Amendment No. 8 … seeks consultation on appointments with the Higher Education Funding Council for England … That would he very cumbersome. This is a relatively small body and it would have to be done every time the agency had an ad hoc vacancy. The funding council is in any case a body which itself is appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no logic in the amendment. It also overlooks that we have already, in Clause 2(2) (a), included a reference to experience in the provision of higher education as something to which the Secretary of State must have regard".—[Official Report, 10/3/94; col. 1624.]
With the greatest possible respect, I suggest that the Minister's argument has no logic.
There is no reason why consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England should be "very cumbersome". The members of the Higher Education Funding Council for England need to discuss higher education issues on a regular basis. The Higher Education Funding Council could meet to discuss the important matter of the recommended appointments to the new Teacher Training Agency that it wishes to make to the Secretary of State. Moreover, there is no problem about the Secretary of State using the Higher Education Funding Council in an advisory capacity to guide him in making his ad hoc appointments.
The very fact that members of the Higher Education Funding Council are appointed by the Secretary of State surely means that he judges that they have a particular knowledge and have shown a capacity in matters relating to higher education. Therefore, it is entirely logical that the Higher Education Funding Council should be consulted arid should advise the Secretary of State on the appointment of members to the Teacher Training Agency.
Clause 2(2)(a) includes specific reference to members of the new Teacher Training Agency having experience of the provision of higher education. But that does not cover the point about consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council. Consultation does not mean Higher Education Funding Council representation; nor does it mean that the Secretary of State has to accept Higher Education Funding Council nominees. However, it would place on the face of the Bill the important link between higher education and its institutions with the Teacher Training Agency and its responsibilities for funding and providing for teacher
1404
training courses. The Higher Education Funding Council will have a valuable role to play in discussing and advising the Secretary of State on the appointment of members to the Teacher Training Agency.
Before I conclude my remarks on this amendment, it is perhaps appropriate to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that role was recognised by the Minister on Report when she said:
"In appointing members to this body"—
in other words the TTA—
"I imagine that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education will consider carefully the case for overlapping membership of the two bodies we have discussed. We expect them to work closely together and joint membership would be one way of securing that".—[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 865.]
It is surely in the spirit of that response that the Secretary of State should consult with the HEFC on appointments to the Teacher Training Agency.
It is relevant in that context to note one other point. At col. 882 of Hansard on the same day the Minister said:
"I should like publicly to reassure and place on record our intention to consult the Churches both about initial appointments and any future appointments in which the Churches might be thought to have a legitimate interest".
It is difficult to understand why the Minister was unable to give a similar reassurance with regard to the: HEFCE, especially when in the same debate she emphasised strongly its special relationship with the Teacher Training Agency. She said at col. 867:
"It is important not just that the members of each organisation should come together formally but that the two bodies should work together for the benefit of promoting good teacher training".
Formal consultation by the Secretary of State with the HEFCE on appointments to the Teacher Training Agency would be a recognition of the overarching higher educational responsibilities of the HEFCE and the importance of a good working relationship with the Teacher Training Agency.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 36. Representation by the HEFCE would help to ensure the retention of the vital link between higher education and initial teacher education. In response to an amendment tabled in Committee, the Minister moved an amendment on Report to provide representation for Ofsted at TTA meetings. She said at col. 884:
"The two bodies have complementary roles to play in ensuring that standards in initial teacher training are maintained and improved. Because of the closeness of that relationship, I believe it right that this should be written on the face of the Bill to ensure the free flow of information between the two bodies".
But those words of the Minister could be used equally well to describe the complementary roles and the importance of the free flow of information between the Teacher Training Agency and the HEFCE. They reflect the comments by the Minister about the special relationship between the two organisations, comments to which I have referred.
I know that in arguing against the formal overlap of the HEFCE members on the Teacher Training Agency the Minister said at col. 867:
"We are talking about busy people and if they were not prepared to take membership of the two national bodies under their belts, there would be vacancies on the agency and that would he unthinkable".—[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 867.]
But surely that problem would be overcome if the HEFCE were entitled to send representatives to attend

1405
and take part in any deliberations (but not decisions) at TTA meetings and if the TTA were to provide the HEFCE with copies of any documents distributed to members of the agency on the same basis as Ofsted. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a long time since I read my Sherlock Holmes but I seem to remember a story of an athlete, supposedly dead, whom Holmes discovered to have possessed one dumbbell. He called on Watson to imagine the type of figure that would develop doing the exercises only with the one dumbbell. Watson, of course, was quite unable to see the significance of that information, but ultimately that led to the discovery of the previous prime suspect dead in the moat.
The amendment is calling for the second dumbbell. Whatever way this works out, there will inevitably be a border area between the work of the Higher Education Funding Council and the Teacher Training Agency. I hope that it will not be a border like the Great Wall of China. I should much prefer it to be a border like the Welsh Marches, where influence spreads across on both sides—a constant meeting of people and a constant exchange of ideas and, indeed, perhaps a bilingual area along the border. In that way sometimes very amicable relations can be produced.
If we are to have that Welsh Marches border relationship, we shall need constant consultation. The three amendments which we are discussing produce that. They are intended as a serious contribution towards making the Bill work. I cannot see how it can possibly work unless there is such regular consultation. If it is going to happen in any event, I do not see why the noble Baroness should object to having it written on to the face of the Bill. I hope that she will see her way to accept the amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I remember our discussions at the last stage of the Bill as to whether there should be a member of the HEFCE by statutory right as a member also of this body. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in their disappointment at not achieving that have fallen back on the position of having an observer and giving the observer the right to have all the papers that the sponsor body should require. That is the effect of Amendment No. 36. However, the group goes much wider than that and in a sense I am rather surprised to find all three together. Indeed, I wondered whether there would be a third dumbbell, but I cannot quite follow the noble Earl's analogy in that regard.
The first amendment amends Clause 1 and requires all the functions of the Teacher Training Agency to be carried out in consultation with HEFCE—if it is correct to call it H-E-F-C-E. I suppose that my noble friend, who is our expert on acronyms, will correct me if I am wrong. However, HEFCE is to be a partner almost in all the functions set out, and they are all the functions of the agency in Clause 1.
Then we find the second amendment, Amendment No. 7, striking at Clause 2, with a second duty to consult
1406
about one of the functions. It seems to me that Amendment No. 7 must be superfluous if Amendment No. 2 is accepted. However, I notice that there is a difference in the drafting which may be significant. I say that because Amendment No. 2 talks about "in consultation with" and Amendment No. 7 talks about consultation taking place,
"before making any appointments under subsection (1)".
In other words, a deed is carried out after consultation.
The latter leads me to reflect, again, on Amendment No. 2 and to wonder what the effects of it would be with regard to the different functions to which it would apply. All the TTA's functions as a funding agency under this part of the Bill would be carried out in consultation with HEFCE. Therefore, presumably, all the working out, the inquiries, the calculations, the divisions and the distribution, would be carried out in consultation with HEFCE and subject to frequent correspondence and joint meetings.
However, what about the function under Clause 1(1) (b); namely, to provide,
"information and advice on teaching as a career"?
Should that not be as in the second amendment and carried out after consultation? If every function of that body is to be carried out in consultation with another body, it seems to me that they might as well be in one building and become one body. It is possible that that is what the noble Lord and his coadjutors would wish to happen. If so, I should like to know because it seems to me that that is not the intention of the Bill and that it should not be brought about by covert means. Paragraph (c) covers all,
"other functions as may be conferred on them by or under this Part".
Therefore, as I said, there would be no move, however small or insignificant, that the TTA could carry out without consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council.
The proposal presupposes a most cumbrous and elaborate form of bureaucracy. I should have thought that it would be a great mistake to incorporate it into the Bill with such consequences. If the amendments were to be separated, I suppose that there would be some consolation in the fact that they would not then be tautological because, as I said, Amendment No. 7 is otiose if Amendment No. 2 is passed. In view of the consequences as regards Amendment No. 2, I hope that noble Lords will reject both amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on Second Reading I asked my noble friend the Minister whether the Government would consider making the agency a sub-committee of the Higher Education Funding Council. That was an idea put forward by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and, to my mind, my noble friend gave a very satisfactory answer. I came to the conclusion that the purpose of the Bill was a good one.
It seems to me that the amendments attempt to put the agency back into a position very similar to that of a sub-committee. However, the Bill's purpose has been largely accepted by this place with a few exceptions

1407
which, as my noble friend said, need to be smoothed out in another place, and the House has accepted that it should be an independent agency. Quite apart from that, I should have thought—and the noble Lord may like to elaborate on the point—that such an amendment moved on Third Reading should be fairly precise. Presumably, it is not a probing amendment at this stage. To say that every function should be exercised in consultation with the HEFCE is a very vague statement as it clearly would not be possible for the bodies to consult one another about everything. What does the noble Lord mean by "consultation"? "Before making any appointments" the agency would have to consult the funding council. Would that apply to every appointment right down the scale? It seems to me that that is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve.
There is another area where consultation has to happen all the time as regards all three amendments; namely, in the entitlement to attend as regards cross-representation. All those requirements would be enormously clumsy. The noble Lord needs to be much more precise in his definitions when making such amendments—that may be possible, unless he is simply making a general point—if he wishes to get back to the agency being a sub-committee, which was a question raised on Second Reading and in Committee. I do not believe that the amendments will do as they stand.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it will not come as a surprise to your Lordships that I should also like to speak against Amendments 2, 7 and 36. To me, the worst appears to be Amendment No. 2. So far as I can see, it would come right at the start of Clause 1 and would require the new agency, whatever it is to be called, to exercise all its functions and then carry out all its objectives in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council which, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is called HEFCE. If we are in the business of criticising acronyms, I must say that I am not sure that HEFCE is much better than apartheid or, indeed, appetite; but, still, there we go. I should have thought that that was not only undesirable, for all the points that I made in moving Amendment No. 1, and in speaking to the other amendments in the first group, but also because it would be so cumbersome as to be completely unworkable. I believe that one would need another agency, no doubt with another acronym, to handle the paperwork of the consultation process going backwards and forwards between the proposed agency and the Higher Education Funding Council.
I turn now to Amendment No.7. I suppose that I have less difficulty with it, provided that the consultation required was no more than that specified in the amendment. Indeed, I should have thought that it was probable that such consultation would, in any case, take place. As to the idea that the amendments follow on from—namely, that there should be joint membership of the HEFCE and the proposed agency—the only thing that I would venture to say is that I should have thought that someone who has time for all of that and to be a significant teacher in his own right (or in any of the other classes that are required) would not be all that
1408
valuable a member. However, that is, perhaps, my own feeling which comes from my experience on the Council for National Academic Awards.
Amendment No. 36, I should have thought, likewise is fairly superfluous, although I do not suppose that would much mind if a member of the HEFCE were to attend meetings of the new agency. However, in the second part of the amendment we are again in great administrative difficulties in distributing copies of documents between the two bodies.
I have one final point to make about the three amendments. They seem to me to put the new agency back into the maw of higher education more than would be healthy for the functions of the new agency, especially when one has regard to the new wording in Clause 2(2) of the Bill concerning those whom the Secretary of State must consider when appointing people to the new agency. In that subsection, we already have mention of people who "have experience of" and,
"have shown capacity in the provision of higher education other than the training of teachers",
and who have shown,
"capacity in any position carrying responsibility for such matters",
many of which are connected with higher education.
My overriding point is that higher education has already had a substantial bite of the cherry we are considering. Everyone who goes on to the new school-based teacher training courses will already have a degree. I believe that the slice of the cake—if I may mix metaphors—that the amendments now propose to give higher education are altogether exorbitant and unacceptable.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it rather appears that with this batch of amendments the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are taking a belt and braces approach. Whereas the braces are acceptable, perhaps the belt is rather otiose. Amendment No. 36 seems to me to make perfect sense. It proposes that a representative of the Higher Education Funding Council for England shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Teacher Training Agency and that the agency should provide appropriate information to the HEFCE. In that way there is an adequate flow of information. Amendment No. 7 refers to the appointments to the Teacher Training Agency and suggests that before making those appointments the Secretary of State should consult the HEFCE. I believe all of that makes good sense and I would be happy to support those amendments.
However, as other noble Lords have already indicated, Amendment No. 2 proposes that the entire work of the Teacher Training Agency shall be undertaken in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I believe that would create areas of confusion. For example, when we are considering the function of providing information and advice on teaching as a career, are we really considering that to be something which is central to the province of the Higher Education Funding Council? Noble Lords will remember that it was, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, himself and others on the other side of the House, and indeed myself, who said that as regards

1409
research we should be asking ourselves where responsibilities lie. We were making the point that in the field of research and in the field of education generally, not just teacher training, that is a matter that should be the province of the Higher Education Funding Council. I am happy to say that when we discuss later amendments today that will be the line which my noble friend the Minister will propose. She will propose broadly that there should be a proper division of responsibilities.
I am all in favour of a flow of information as indicated under Amendment No. 36, but Clause 1(2) states that the agency should secure that teachers are,
"well fitted and trained to promote the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils".
Those matters relating to pupils are very much the province of the Teacher Training Agency. I should have thought that they are rather more remote from the concerns of the Higher Education Funding Council. Therefore, I find the belt—that is to say Amendment No. 2—to be a shade superfluous, whereas I would certainly be happy to support the two subsequent amendments as proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, have my doubts about these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be pleased to know that I agree with him half-way—or at least I think half-way—in saying that these two organisations, the TTA and the HEFCE will have to co-operate and indeed will have to work closely together. But I do not like the way in which he has approached that matter in these amendments. First, Amendment No. 2 goes far too far. To use the same words in a domestic situation, if I were to agree to cook dinner in consultation with my wife, that would mean that if she wanted to be able to eat it, she would be exercising extremely close supervision over everything that I did. The words which the noble Lord has put down in his amendment would mean a total confusion of responsibilities. It would mean that the HEFCE was involved in every little detail of the teacher training agency's business and that to my mind would be completely unworkable and would in effect wreck the Bill.
As far as the other amendments are concerned, I do not want to see this relationship laid down in that way as a one-sided, one way relationship. To use the illustration that the noble Earl employed, I do not think that Welsh local authorities would welcome having to have on their committees an observer from their neighbouring English authorities with no provision in the other direction. I think that these relationships work best if they come about naturally through co-operation, through Government encouragement, and grow up as a means whereby both institutions can better undertake their functions. Indeed the independence of the Teacher Training Agency is a very important part of its nature because independence as we have seen with the further education funding councils brings with it vigour and enthusiasm and status. Those are qualities which I would not like to see wasted by amendments such as these.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, invited the Government to sort out the muddle in this Bill. I think it is worth putting again on the record the fact that accreditation cannot remain—as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said it should—a function of the higher education institutions because they simply have no such function at the moment. But they were nevertheless given functions for the first time under an amendment to Clause 13. But, as I said earlier, that function is not defined. The higher education institutions' function is simply added to an already defined function of accreditation already to be given under the Bill to the Teacher Training Agency. The noble Lords opposite did not succeed in opposing the proposal to establish a Teacher Training Agency, nor did they succeed in removing the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations to confer powers to accredit in Clause 13. Therefore the confusion is their own. We have no intention of removing the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations to confer accreditation powers on the Teacher Training Agency. Nor is it the Government's job to create a definition of higher education institutions' powers to accredit. As accreditation is covered already by the agency, why should we concern ourselves with the refinement of the noble Lord's amendments? It must be for another place to consider the proliferation of accreditation, but there is too much accreditation in this Bill as it stands.
This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 36—returns to an old theme in our debates on this Bill; namely, the theme of what needs to be said in statute about the relationship of the Teacher Training Agency and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Earlier I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, criticised someone for talking about there being a monopoly of higher education. If there was not such a monopoly before, there certainly would be if the noble Lord had his way with this Bill because almost all his efforts and all his energies are absolutely geared to making sure that the schools take second place and that the agency takes second place to higher education in all matters.
The mistake common to each of these amendments is that they attempt to capture too much in statute as my noble friend Lord Lucas has just said. We are all agreed that the agency and the funding council must work together in an effective and efficient way. But it does not necessarily follow that we should legislate to force that to happen. We have already gone as far as is necessary to facilitate co-operation in Clause 9, which provides explicitly for the agency to exercise its functions jointly with the funding council where that would enable it to work more efficiently or effectively.
Amendment No. 2 would be very damaging. It would prevent the agency from pursing any of its statutory functions independently. In every single case, the agency would be duty bound to consult the funding council before taking action. I recognise that the agency would not be obliged to take the funding council's advice on every occasion. But how would the agency know, from the drafting of this amendment, what would count as adequate and sufficiently frequent consultation? And where would accountability be in this

1411
arrangement? It would be very hard to disentangle if the agency were constantly working under such a constraint, of a kind no other funding body has to work under.
Neither can I endorse Amendment No. 7. We already have on the face of the Bill, in Clause 2, numerous membership provisions. We debated those at great length and a number of improvements have been written into the Bill as a result. I hope we shall make yet further improvements later today. Clause 2 already requires the Secretary of State to take account of experience and ability in providing higher education, both in teacher training establishments and elsewhere, when he is appointing people to the agency. There is also nothing to preclude the funding council from making suggestions to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, either about the type of members he might look for or individual names.
We should be content to rest on that. The statutory approach in this kind of area inevitably raises new problems. A particular difficulty with this amendment is that it would require consultation every time there was an ad hoc vacancy on the agency's board. That would be very cumbersome, and inappropriate too, if, as may be the case, the area in which the board needs strengthening is in experience of school teaching, or denominational or special needs matters. Those points were raised by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
It is true that in the case of the Funding Agency for Schools, the Secretary of State must consult the Churches before appointing any member. But the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has accepted that that provision goes further than the Churches ever intended. Amendment No. 36 would give the funding council rights of access to agency documents and board and committee meetings. Despite what noble Lords have said, I do not see the case for that. The other higher and further education funding councils do not have such statutory rights in respect of each other. The higher and further education funding councils jointly fund numerous institutions. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England helps to support some 80 further education institutions, while the Further Education Funding Council gives funds to some 50 higher education institutions. They do so without the need for statutory access to each other's meetings and papers. Nor does the amendment before us extend that right to the Teacher Training Agency. What is the argument in favour of the funding council having such a right which does not extend also to the agency?
I fear that this is another example of noble Lords opposite wanting the agency to work under the supervision of the Higher Education Funding Council rather than alongside it as an equal partner. If it were really essential for the funding council to have this right over a fellow funding body, then it would call into doubt the adequacy of the statutory arrangements for all other similar bodies.
The reality is that the existing councils all get along well and have no need of a statutory basis for seeking advice and information from each other. Nor do I think
1412
that any council would exclude another council's chairman if there were good reason for him to be present at a meeting.
It is true that Ofsted will have the rights to attend agency meetings and to request documents which this amendment seeks for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. But Ofsted and the agency will have a particularly close working relationship to enable them to improve standards in initial teacher training. In particular, Ofsted will continue its work in assessing the quality of teacher training to inform the agency's; decisions with effect from the 1995–96 funding year. Ofsted will be looking at all courses over a four-year cycle. That will be vital to the agency in its accreditation and funding roles. The funding council will have no comparable responsibilities with such a direct impact on the work of the Teacher Training Agency.
It would certainly not be right for the Higher Education Funding Council to offer views; to the TTA on the appointment of teachers. The Higher Education Funding Council might be one body with views on higher education, but the same might he said about the other bodies with an interest in the area. I should have more sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, if he wanted the TTA to be consulted about Higher Education Funding Council appointments. That would at least suggest an equal partnership. However, his one-sided approach—or to borrow a phrase, his one dumbbell approach—shows what is the crux of the amendments. He wants the Higher Education Funding Council to have the upper hand, as he has wanted throughout the entire process of the Bill through this place. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very grateful for the considerate reply by the Minister. I should like to deal with several points which have emerged in this exchange.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to the possibility that what we propose is, under another guise, a sub-committee of the HEFCE. I ask her to look carefully at Amendment No. 36. It is clear from that amendment that, if somebody is entitled to attend meetings, that does not mean that they are necessarily expected to attend regularly. They will be entitled to attend; they will receive papers; when they want to attend they can attend. However, if they attend they cannot vote. In my experience of administration that is not the characteristic of a sub-committee. It is an arrangement for ensuring adequate exchange of information and adequate consultation between two bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, raised the issue of joint membership. We do not refer to joint membership. We refer to representation of the HEFCE at meetings of the TTA. The representative might change. It is not the same as having a full member. We may not agree with it, but we accept the point made by the Minister that it was too much to ask people to undertake joint membership. I ask the noble Lord to look very carefully at what we propose.

1413
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were concerned about the degree of work on which there would have to be consultation. Again I come back to Amendment No. 36, which makes the matter very clear. If people receive the papers, are in the picture about what is happening and are entitled to attend meetings of the agency if they so wish, then if matters arise on which HEFCE feels it is appropriate for it to be involved there will be a means by which it can make its representations without having the responsibility for the decisions which are ultimately taken. I believe that that is sound.
That brings me to the observations made by the Minister herself. She asked how it would be known whether the consultation was adequate. I listened very carefully, and that is a fair question. Again I come back to Amendment No. 36. It would be known because the members of the Higher Education Funding Council would be receiving papers. If the council so wished it would be able to be represented at meetings. Therefore, the Higher Education Funding Council would be able to make it clear whether adequate consultation was taking place. That would avoid a situation which can so easily arise, not necessarily intentionally but inadvertently, whereby two busy organisations begin to drift apart. Then there is a colossal task in trying to bring them back together to sort out problems which can only be sorted out by the two bodies co-operating effectively.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My intervention is for clarification, which I believe is in order at this stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord is forgetting that this is a free-standing amendment. His amendment provides that:
"There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Teacher Training Agency to exercise, in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England … their functions as a funding agency under this Part … the function of providing information and advice on teaching as a career,"
and also the function of accreditation of eligible institutions and such other functions as may be conferred on it under this part of the Bill. The amendment relates also to many other aspects. There is no choice. If those words appear on the face of the Bill that body must consult with the HEFC on every single aspect of its work. There is no qualification by which that shall be curtailed.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister intervened on that point because it seems to me—and I hope that she will forgive me for saying so—that she is proposing a novel approach to legislation. She seems to be implying that all the provisions of a Bill have to be included in one comprehensive clause in which all the points are brought together. As she herself knows from designing her own Bills, in any Bill certain principles are set out at one stage of the Bill which are then carried forward and made possible by subsequent clauses in the Bill. That is why the amendments are grouped. The Minister shakes her head. I always enjoy the enticing way in which she shakes her head. But she knows perfectly well what I am saying. We accepted the
1414
grouping which was proposed because we accept that there is a logical relationship between these three amendments.
Therefore, I put it to her that, if she is serious—and I have never questioned the Minister's seriousness in putting points forward—about all that she said during the Committee stage and at Report stage to reassure those who had anxieties as to whether there would be vigorous and consistent consultation between the HEFCE and the TTA, it is extraordinary not to include this provision as a basic principle on which the TTA will operate. It is because we took the importance of what she herself said at earlier stages of our deliberations that we believe the amendment is crucial to underpin in practice the spirit of what she said to us when anxieties were raised.
It is for that reason that we shall pursue the matter to a Division tonight. We do not do so in any sense of hostility whatsoever. We do so because we believe that this House has a responsibility to give effect to the means by which we shall achieve the ends which she herself so powerfully spelt out.
4.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hunt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Judd, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kennet, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cross, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parry, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ridley, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sherfield, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Healey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

1415

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Holderness, L.

Acton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Hothfield, L.

Aldington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Knollys, V.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsay, E.

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bumham, L.

Marsh, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Coleridge, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Courtown, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cowley, E.

Norrie, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cranborne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perth, E.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Prentice, L.

Dormer, L.

Pym, L.

Downshire, M.

Quinton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rennell, L.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Erne, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Flather, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strafford, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hacking, L.

[Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swansea, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Torrington, V.

Hertford, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

1416

Ullswater, V. [Teller]

Westbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The agency shall, so far as relevant for the purposes of advancing teacher education and training under subsection (2) above—

(a) keep under review all aspects of teacher education and training to ensure courses of initial) teacher training provided by schools are accredited by institutions of higher education, as may be prescribed;

(b) advise the Secretary of State and the Higher Education Funding Council on such matters concerned with the accreditation of institutions as providers of teacher education and training:

(c) publish and disseminate, and assist in the publication and dissemination of, information relating to teacher education and training;

(d) make arrangements with appropriate bodies for auditing the quality of assessments made in pursuance of teacher education and training arrangements; and

(e) be responsible for administering funds made available to them by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing financial support for the provision of teacher education and training under section 4 below.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill currently identifies the objectives of the Teacher Training Agency in Clause 1(2). But I think it is significant that it fails to spell out the responsibilities which the agency will have. Whatever our misgivings, it seems to me that for their part the Government see the Bill largely as a tidying up piece of legislation to rationalise functions and responsibilities of existing organisations. Any such intention surely requires that the new agency's responsibilities are explicitly spelt out. Indeed, on a previous amendment the Minister and others suggested that it was important to be detailed arid explicit. The amendment therefore specifies the remit of the Teacher Training Agency. It allows the agency to be properly monitored and establishes the areas of activity on which it could be expected to report in its annual report. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord may think me rather pedantic in making specific comments on the amendment which he has moved so briefly. However, I do not think I am entirely mistaken in feeling that it was very much this amendment or something close to it which was originally set down at Report stage but was not moved. Had the amendment been moved then, it would have been possible, I believe, for us to look at the wording in a little detail and perhaps make comments. Then if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had chosen, at that stage he could have withdrawn it and reintroduced it at this stage without the minor imperfections which the amendment seems to possess. Its larger objective seems to me to be broadly harmless, but perhaps at times otiose. But there are aspects of it that are really very peculiar. Let us look at paragraph (a):
"keep under review all aspects of teacher education and training to ensure courses of initial teacher training provided by schools are accredited by institutions of higher education".

1417
It comes down to the issue of accreditation which continues to confuse a number of us. But then the paragraph continues: "as may be prescribed". Here a phrase drops from the sky which certainly confuses me entirely: prescribed by whom, for goodness sake? We may make the assumption that if anything is ever prescribed it is prescribed by the Secretary of State. I suspect that that may be what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, intends. But there are many in this House who are very eager indeed to insist that the Secretary of State should not be given powers to step in and prescribe this or that when he chooses to prescribe it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd—perhaps when he sums up in relation to this amendment he will be good enough to say—who it is intended will make this prescription, and what entirely does it entail?
If we turn to paragraph (b), perhaps we find a clue:
"advise the Secretary of State and the Higher Education Funding Council on such matters concerned with the accreditation of institutions as providers of teacher education and training".
What is the grammatical role of "such"? I ask that as a rhetorical question. I have the suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, intended "as may be prescribed" to be in paragraph (b); I suspect that (b) was intended to read, "such matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe". I may be wrong, but if we are talking about an amendment at Third Reading we may respectfully hope that the wording is correct. I apologise profoundly if I am implying error on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and if the error is in fact my own. But the noble Lord will have the opportunity of explaining the grammatical role of "such" in that paragraph and who is to make that prescription.
I may add that paragraph (c) appears to add very little to the powers. To be able to,
"publish and disseminate, and assist in the publication and dissemination",
is not a power, it seems to me, which needs to be prescribed in this specific way.
Paragraph (e) refers to being, "responsible for administering funds". Surely that responsibility arises when there is a power to receive funding anyway.
Finally, there is a question in relation to paragraph (d):
"make arrangements with appropriate bodies for auditing the quality of assessments made in pursuance".
Am I right in thinking that it is Her Majesty's Inspectorate that makes these assessments? If so, are we talking of auditing Her Majesty's Inspectorate? I should be very grateful for elucidation on that point. It seems to me that this amendment is a bit of a concatenation, and I am doubtful whether this House would be wise to approve it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like briefly to support every word that my noble friend Lord Renfrew has just said. If I had any wish to disagree with him it would be on the ground that he was excessively kind to the wording of the amendment. In paragraph (c) the requirement is to,
"publish and disseminate, and assist in the publication and dissemination of, information relating to teacher education".
1418
I cannot help feeling that if my noble friend were to accept the amendment it would perhaps be the death knell of the agency. It would not have a hope. I am very confident that my noble friend will reject it.
The same could be said about paragraph (d). One must be very sympathetic with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who proposed the amendment. After all, the disease is catching, and the Government have on occasions produced the most ghastly legislative horrors. But I beg the noble Lord to be more careful in future, and perhaps to go into quarantine for a bit to make sure that he does not catch anything horrid from the modern fashion in legislation. I wonder what on earth the Teacher Training Agency would make of the instruction in paragraph (d) to,
"make arrangements with appropriate bodies for auditing the quality of assessments",
if it were ever laid upon the agency.
While I am on my feet I should just like to say to my noble friend—and I mean this—a word of congratulation on the skill with which she has handled this Bill. If I am entitled to a view at all I would say that it has been vastly improved as a result of her handling.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House will forgive me if I savour the moment to have my noble friend Lord Peyton on my side. I thank him most warmly for what he just said.
When this amendment was laid at Report stage and was then not moved so early in the day, I thought (and rather hoped) that it was in order to take it away and deal with all its flaws. But we have the amendment back at Third Reading. Inexplicably it was not moved at Report. It was spoken to with such brevity today that I really do wonder whether the noble Lord has his heart in this particular amendment. And we are left bemused and puzzled. The word that my noble friend Lord Renfrew used; namely that the amendment is a "concatenation", is apt.
The noble Lord has taken a very good piece of legislation—that which establishes the remit of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority—and has sought to adjust it for the purpose of redefining the role of the Teacher Training Agency. The fit is not a good one, and the adjustments which have been made add to the confusion over what the amendment would in fact achieve.
At the heart of this confusion is the question that was addressed in our first debate of just who will accredit whom. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, wants a higher education institution to accredit schools. He also wants the Teacher Training Agency to advise the Secretary of State and the Higher Education Funding Council about accreditation. But —unless I have missed something —nothing in the noble Lord's amendments changes the import of Clause 13, which also gives the accreditation function to the agency itself. So we would have the agency, the council, the Secretary of State and higher education institutions involved in accreditation in some way. There would also of course, I assume, be a continuing role for Ofsted.
I leave your Lordships to count up quite how many layers there are in this particular bureaucratic entanglement. I believe the fundamental problem is the

1419
noble Lord's confusion over accreditation and validation which I mentioned earlier. This area was the subject of much discussion at Committee stage, on Report, and earlier today. I have to say that I prefer the straightforward and clear-cut approach of our original proposals.
Turning to the amendment in more detail, under paragraph (a) the agency would have to keep all aspects of teacher education and training "under review"—a laudable aim, although a pretty daunting one for a funding and accrediting body. But it would do so "to ensure" that all courses are
"accredited by institutions of higher education".
Like my noble friends, I am assuming that "as may be prescribed" in paragraph (a) should in fact be at the end of (b) where it makes a bit more sense. Ensuring anything requires a good deal more than keeping it under review. This paragraph does not hang together at all.
Paragraph (b), to which I have already referred, requires advice on "such matters" concerned with accreditation to be given to the Secretary of State and the funding council—but to what purpose? If this is indeed where "as may be prescribed" is designed to fit, it is not clear which body is to do the prescribing—perhaps both?
If that is not so, then "such matters" are not defined in any way at all. So the paragraph as it stands makes no sense. As my noble friend Lord Peyton said, paragraph (c) on the publication of information adds absolutely nothing to what is already in the Bill. I repeat his question: What would the Teacher Training Agency make of it as an instruction?
The drafting of paragraph (d) is very odd indeed. It requires the agency to make arrangements for auditing the quality of assessments. In the case of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, that paragraph was specifically designed to allow for schools' assessments of pupils against national curriculum targets to be monitored so that standards could be assured.
There has been considerable debate about the number of layers of quality assessment within higher education. In this one area, where Ofsted has the lead role and visiting by independent outside observers is therefore regular and universal, it would be very odd indeed to impose yet another layer of "moderation of assessments". Can higher education institutions, which, under the Bill as it stands will have a role in every course, not be trusted? Or is the agency simply to "make arrangements" for Ofsted and other bodies to carry on doing what they are already doing?
Paragraph (e) adds nothing to the funding powers which the agency has already under Clause 4 as drafted.
But I must return to paragraph (b). The agency is to advise the Secretary of State and the funding council on accreditation. Yet under the Bill as it now stands neither body has any role in accreditation as such. The Secretary of State will set out the criteria on which accreditation is based. He will consult a range of bodies, including no doubt the agency and the funding council, before doing so. But the process of accreditation as defined under Clause 13 is a matter for the agency; and, as a result of
1420
the amendments to Clauses 11 and 13, there is also an undefined, parallel role for individual higher education institutions.
The amendment before us is designed to tinker with the functions of the agency to underpin a very different system from the clear and open one that we proposed. But it does not as drafted seem to underpin even the: system implied by the Bill as it stands. It would almost certainly increase bureaucracy. It appears to imply new and unclear roles for the Secretary of State and the: funding council. It would apparently multiply, and certainly not reduce, the number of bodies involved in accreditation.
The amendment is not a logical or sensible consequence of the amendments passed in Committee. It would compound uncertainty rather than clarify it. Its impact is at best unclear and certainly unacceptable. I hope that it will not be pressed. If it is, I must ask the House to reject it.
5 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have participated in this exchange. I should like to say to the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew, and Lord Peyton, whom I greatly respect and to whom I always listen with great attention, that in a sense I stand admonished and accept their admonishment on detail. But I ask them to consider that we on these Benches have been placed in a rather invidious position.
We are concerned about the gigantic, gaping hole in the Bill whereby the objectives are spelled out but the responsibilities are not. This House has debated at length the anxiety which exists about the developing trend towards more and more quangos in our society and the implications for the quality of our democracy. If we are to be able to monitor what those quangos are doing and judge the effectiveness with which they deliver the services that they were established to provide, it is absolutely essential that we see in the Bill the agency's responsibilities. They are conspicuously absent in the Bill as drafted.
It is for that reason that we have tried to fill the gap. We may have done so very imperfectly. Indeed our attempt may be greatly improved. But this afternoon I should be very much heartened to hear from the Minister that she takes the point about the need to be able to monitor and evaluate the work of quangos, which conduct very important tasks on behalf of society as a whole, and that when the Bill is introduced in another place she will make sure that the issue of responsibilities, as distinct from the vague "objectives" to which the Bill refers, is there for all to judge. That is the first point.
Just to underline that point, I must tell the House that, having read the first part of the Bill, I turned to Schedule 1. I thought that within the schedule we might see more detail. The schedule specifies how the Teacher Training Agency will operate, but not its responsibilities relating to its functions and objectives as set out in Clause 1. Our amendment attempts to provide that information in a way that is similar to Section 245 of the 1993 Education Act and Section 2 of the 1992 Education Act, which specify the responsibilities of the School Curriculum

1421
and Assessment Authority and Ofsted respectively. I cannot for the life of me see why, in a Bill of such significance, the good practice established in those two Bills is not followed in this Bill, if we can do so, for although we talk about it as good practice all things are relative.
I accept the criticisms made about detail and do not wish to pursue unreasonably the imperfect draft. Therefore, I seek leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I hope that the Government will take seriously the anxiety which exists and rectify the drafting of the Bill when it comes to be considered in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("exercisable") in line 2 and insert ("Except where corresponding functions in relation to Wales are conferred on another person or body, the functions of the agency are").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which clarifies the division of responsibilities for functions under Part I of the Bill in relation to Wales. The current draft recognises the divisions between the agency and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales set out under Clauses 3 to 10. But there are also functions under, for example, Clause 13, which may be carried out by either of the two funding bodies. The amendment therefore ensures that the agency has the statutory power to carry out any function in Wales, but only where that function has not already been conferred on another person or body, and only at the request of the Secretary of State. I am sure that your Lordships will recognise that this is a simple clarifying amendment which removes any misunderstanding about the extent of the power of the agency to deal with matters relating to Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Membership, &c. of the agency]:
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("of") to ("members") in line 7 and insert ("between eight and twelve").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. They deal with further membership issues and are government amendments which have arisen from all noble Lords' concerns in previous debates. I shall take each in turn, trespassing in advance on the amendments in this group in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford (Amendment No. 11) and my noble friend Lord Pearson (Amendment No. 9). My comments on their amendments will not preclude any debate on those amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, raised at Report stage a drafting point on the section to which the government Amendment No. 6 applies. I am grateful to her for that. The new formulation does not use the words "less than eight … members" to which she objected. It also removes the word "or" to which objection has also been raised on grammatical grounds by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. This is therefore a technical amendment
1422
which I hope will command general support, including support from the noble Baroness, Lady White. In the light of her concern I went back to counsel and took advice. I am assured and am prepared to put on record on the basis of counsel's advice that "between eight and twelve" does not mean "nine and eleven". It does in fact mean eight, nine, 10, 11 and 12. I am told that there is no confusion whatever in terms of what it means.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 tabled in my name meet a point addressed in other amendments that we discussed at the Report stage, brought forward by my noble friend Lord Pearson and by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Clause 2 as originally drafted required the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including on the agency's board members with experience of the provision of education in schools and higher education. I made clear at the Report stage that "provision of education" in this context referred to teaching, which was the point addressed in the amendments by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. But I am pleased to put it beyond doubt by these amendments, which set out in detail what was already implicit in Clause 2.
My noble friend Lord Pearson again tabled Amendment No. 9, which removed the reference to "current experience" from the list of factors that the Secretary of State may consider when appointing members to the agency. My noble friend will know from our previous debates that I agree entirely that we should not limit consideration of the membership to only those who have current experience or responsibility. I have already placed on record my support for the part retired persons with the appropriate experience could play. But I am also concerned to ensure that the agency has the right mix of current experience. That will be vital if it is to respond constructively to the effect of our recent reforms, and be well informed on current issues.
I would therefore be reluctant to delete that reference. I should like to set on record again that this section does not require all members to have current experience and that the Secretary of State will be free to appoint retired people as well as current practitioners. He has recently done so to bodies governed by exactly the same requirement. Indeed, as I also said at an earlier stage, the greater availability of retired people for public appointments makes it most unlikely that they will be overlooked. The now conventional addition of the requirement to have regard to currency of experience has I suspect grown up to ensure that the retired do not have a monopoly of appointments. I hope that that further assurance is sufficient for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford tabled Amendment No. 11 which raises again his concerns about consultation with the Churches over appointments to the Teacher Training Agency. I know from discussions that representatives of the right reverend Prelate had with my officials that careful thought has been given to possible ways in which to achieve the understandable aim of requiring consultation with Church bodies over certain appointments.
As I made clear at Report, we would wish to consult the Churches over appointments where they might have

1423
a direct interest. I therefore welcome the principle behind the amendment and would welcome any advice the Churches gave on specific qualities and experience appointees might possess. Such advice would be invaluable when considering initial appointments and certain ad hoc vacancies. However, I cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
There is a fundamental dilemma here which I do not think the amendment of the right reverend Prelate resolves. If the Churches were to be consulted by law about those appointments in which they had a "legitimate" interest, we should need to define those appointments by law as well. That would require us to define one or more denominational members and take us down the slippery slope of representation. There are many more interested bodies waiting in the wings for just such a move.
On the other hand, I think we are also agreed that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to consult the Churches on every vacancy—indeed the right reverend Prelate himself does not want that outcome.
It is not in my view possible to reflect a sensible solution to this dilemma in legislation. The current amendment seeks to resolve it by referring not to any particular appointments, but to occasions on which the Secretary of State has regard to denominational experience when making an appointment. However, under the wording of Clause 2, the Secretary of State must have regard to all the stated experience and expertise in the case of all appointments. So in fact we are back to requiring consultation on all appointments and every ad hoc vacancy.
I am happy again to make it a matter of public record that we will undertake to consult the Churches, in the way intended by this amendment, when making initial appointments and any future ones where Church input appears relevant. I would hope that the right reverend Prelate can accept this public commitment which meets the principles of his amendment without creating in statute the difficulties that I have outlined and which I believe he also wishes to avoid. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to ask counsel's opinion on the matter. I still believe that the grammar is incorrect. When it says "twelve", I cannot see how it can be "between" eight and twelve. However, we will not discuss it. I still think that, although counsel may make a good lawyer, his grammar is incorrect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 9 which is in my name perhaps I can take the opportunity of thanking my noble friend the Minister for her Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 which seem to me greatly to improve the various categories of people whom the Secretary of State may appoint to the new agency.
Turning to Amendment No. 9, I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. I believe I can take it from what she said that people who have recently retired from teaching, especially in schools, will be seriously considered for membership, or even perhaps that there will be at least one member of the agency in that
1424
category. I do not believe that there will be any difficulty in persuading people who are currently engaged in the softer subjects of providing and teaching higher education to give quite a lot of time to the agency. Many of them already have too much time on their hands. However, it may be more difficult with a good serving teacher at the school level. I am grateful for what my noble friend said and I have no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage.
Lord Judd: My Lords. we should like to put on record how much we appreciate the fact that the Minister took the point in relation to teaching as such and spelt it out in the Bill. We want to say thanks for that.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, in, speaking to Amendment No. 11 which is in my name I must apologise to the House for taking up more time on what must appear to be a small point, arid almost a point of special pleading. In my more hesitant moments I feel that I must be rather like a piece of grit in the well-fitting shoe of the Minister.
It is a small point, but it is a point of substance and I must speak to it again. I remind your Lordships that the Churches provide the higher education colleges in which over one quarter of teachers are being educated —the figure is actually 28 per cent. That is a significant stake in teacher education and it must be recognised that the Churches are in partnership with the state in the whole field of education. Looked at historically, it can reasonably be claimed that it was the Churches who pioneered the way in the whole matter of teacher education. That is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, drew attention at an earlier stage in our discussions on the Bill.
Although our role has very properly diminished, we are nonetheless still in business and are a significant contributor to the whole educational pattern. The Government recognised that—and I am extremely grateful to them—by producing their own amendment, which is now on the face of the Bill, in relation to the desirability of having persons on the Teacher Training Agency who have experience or responsibility for institutions of a denominational character. Not only that, but at an earlier stage and again this afternoon, the Minister gave an assurance that the Churches will be consulted over appointments to the Teacher Training Agency.
As I explained earlier—I am sure that the noble Baroness will not mind my rehearsing it again though I hope not in detail—consultation with the Churches is actually on the face of the 1993 Act. But the consultation that we experienced over appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools was plainly unsatisfactory. That was recognised throughout the House and was almost conceded by the Minister herself. Therefore our embarrassment and difficulty—I must put this plainly—is that when consultation was on the face of the Act, that consultation was not satisfactory. But I

1425
am now being asked to accept assurances which are in Hansard but not on the face of the Bill. That presents me with difficulties.
Of course I accept the assurances given by the noble Baroness the Minister. But what should I do? My representatives were in touch with hers in order to try to hammer out an agreed amendment which will achieve our purposes. Today is the first I have heard that it is not satisfactory. I do not for one moment hold the Minister responsible for that. When we tried to obtain an opinion on whether the Minister would accept the amendment in principle, she was out visiting schools, teacher unions or on some other much more important business. Nonetheless, at Third Reading I am left in the position that it was not until this afternoon that I heard that the amendments were not satisfactory. That puts me in a difficulty. I have no Whips. It does not even look as though I have many votes. Even if I had scorpions I would not be able to do anything. I therefore have no option. I cannot press the matter.
I am sure that the Minister understands why I am not really satisfied. I am grateful for her assurances. However, in view of the fact that we were able to put something on the face of the 1993 Act I am astonished that we cannot find a way of putting something onto the face of this Bill. I do not think it is too late because the Bill has to go to another place. I trust that the Minister will continue to give her mind to this matter in the hope that there may be some satisfactory solution.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether, for reassurance and also for some clarification, I may speak again. It proves a point that words in Bills that become Acts do not necessarily guard against human nature. The right reverend Prelate will know that I have conceded at least once publicly on the record and will do so again that that was a very unfortunate incident. I apologise again unreservedly for that and join my right honourable friend who did so too. That incident was unfortunate.
There was some misunderstanding about the nature of consultation and also about the point at which one consults. Once appointments are made, and some disappointments, it is very difficult to do anything other than allow that information to go out at the same time—it is quite difficult to do it otherwise. But I believe that there is scope for improving the consultation between my department and the right reverend Prelate's department. I do not think it is a matter of what is on the face of the Bill. We must see that human nature honours both the commitment in Hansard and the spirit of what I have said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, leave out lines 11 to 17 and insert:
("(a) to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in—

(i)teaching in schools,

(ii)teaching in higher education (other than training teachers), or

(iii)training teachers, or

(b) to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for—
1426

(i)the provision of education in schools,

(ii)the provision of higher education (other than the training of teachers), or

(iii)the training of teachers;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("the provision of education for") and insert ("teaching").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert:
("(4A) In carrying out his duty under subsection (3) (a) the Secretary of State shall consult the bodies referred to in subsection (4B) about the qualities and background which it would be desirable for persons with the experience or responsibility referred to in that subsection to possess.
(4B) The bodies referred to in subsection (4A) are such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and such other religions and religious denominations as he considers appropriate in matters relating to the provision of higher education in institutions of a denominational character.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I formally move the amendment if only to provoke a little further debate. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for providing this opportunity because I was unfortunately and unavoidably swept out of the Chamber during the debate on the group of amendments. I should like to say how strongly many of us feel the Church and the Churches to be involved both in the history and in the development of our education and how warmly we would welcome, whether in statute or by some other means, a mending of this very important fence which we cannot afford to have broken any longer. I was encouraged by my noble friend's words to believe that she believes this to be the case too. If between this place and another place it is decided that there is room for an amendment for this purpose, I hope that she will give it a fair wind. Otherwise, I hope she will do whatever is necessary to bring these two great institutions of Church and state together in one of their principal tasks.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said. Oral assurances are, I am sure, given in good faith, but the reality is that no successor government to the present Administration will for a moment accept that a commitment made by the noble Baroness this afternoon also commits them, whereas an amendment to the statute would in fact commit them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Elton has said. I hope that my noble friend will attempt to secure something when the Bill goes to another place. I felt rather sorry that the right reverend Prelate did not have available the Whips and scorpions which he thoroughly deserves to have at his command.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful that my Whips and scorpions are reaching further round the House than I had anticipated.

1427
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said earlier on in our discussions. I hope she will heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because I still think that it would be a much more satisfactory and secure arrangement to have something on the face of the Bill, even though we know that that is in some measure fallible. However, I shall leave the matter at that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I may say that many of us are impressed by the lead he has given carefully in his wording to the principles which have been so important, certainly in the history of education, with regard to the co-operation between Church and state. Indeed, the lead in education given by the Church should be extended to other denominations and to other religions in our multi-faith society. We are very glad to see that lead corning from the Church and we commend the right reverend Prelate for the way he phrased his amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Qualifying activities and eligible institutions]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I have to call Amendment No. 13 before Amendment No. 12 because of the question of marshalling.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments consists of Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 19 coupled with Amendment No. 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. They address some very tricky issues which we have debated at length during the passage of the Bill. As I have made clear throughout these discussions, I had an open mind on the right way ahead. The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Skidelsky and Lady Carnegy provided the focus for these amendments. I am grateful to them and indeed to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in his place. shall take each of the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 19, in turn and, if I may, trespass in advance on the amendment in this group under the name of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky.
Amendment No. 13, and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which pick up cross-references, have the effect that the Higher Education Funding Council for England, not the Teacher Training Agency, will continue to fund courses of higher education which are not concerned with teacher training; and to provide formula funds for the generality of educational research.
I believe that these amendments meet the points raised in previous debates. So far as undergraduate and postgraduate education courses are concerned, there remains an argument in principle that it would have been constructive for one funding body to fund these, whether or not they were intended for teachers. But as we shall not be pursuing that approach, I trust that the individual higher education institutions will be vigilant in ensuring that the right cross-fertilisation takes place.
1428
The alternative to these amendments would have involved a complicated disentanglement of the contents of "Academic Subject Category 11/", some of which have nothing at all to do with education, despite the title of the category.
We have now defined the agency's funding powers in such a way that it will be able to focus tightly on its responsibility for teacher training. I should like to reassure those interested in special needs issues in particular that the powers left to the agency in the Bill cover in-service training as well as initial training—so the possibility of the agency having a role in a national system for funding certain types of in-service courses remains as open as before.
The arguments on research have always been slightly different. I gave a number of assurances as long ago as Second Reading about the continuation of current approaches to funding and quality assessment, whether the formal funding responsibility was with the funding council or the agency. Our amendments mean that the funding responsibility will remain with the council. There has, however, been a growing recognition that it is right for the agency to have its own power to commission research into areas clearly related to its other functions and objectives. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and other noble Lords have said in previous debates, if the agency is to fulfil its objectives of raising standards of teaching and teacher training, it must be given the means to ensure that its decisions are informed by research evidence.
Such a power was implicit but not explicit in the Bill as drafted. Amendment No. 19 establishes now on the face of the Bill the agency's power to undertake or commission research with a view to improving teacher training or the standards of teaching. That is entirely at one with the agency's other functions, and, I believe, in line with the consensus that began to emerge in the House at Report stage.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky has tabled Amendment No. 12, which would have the effect of including in Clause 4, as a qualifying activity for agency funding, research commissioned to improve standards in teaching and teacher training.
I do not believe there is any difference at all in the aim of the amendments put forward in my name and that in the name of my noble friend. Indeed, as I have always said, I make no secret of the fact that the amendments I am putting forward have been given focus by the amendments tabled by my noble friend at earlier stages.
I fully understand his wish to see the commissioning power reflected in the activities fundable under Clause 4. But there is an important if somewhat subtle legal distinction here between the activities which can be funded by the agency—essentially the subject of grants to institutions —and the whole range of activities on which the agency can spend money.
The funding powers in Clause 4 do not limit the agency to spending money only on the purposes listed. They must be read alongside its very wide powers in Schedule 1,
"to … do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of their functions".

1429
Those powers cover in particular entering into contracts for the relevant work. The same mechanism can be used to pay for research. Once we have the specific research power for the agency in our new clause, the agency will be able to use its powers under Schedule 1 to enter into contracts for commissioned research.
With that assurance I hope that these amendments will have met the anxieties of the House and will have gathered as much consensus as possible to support them. I also hope that the assurance will persuade my noble friend that his amendment is not applicable here. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, I wish to address specifically Amendment No. 12 standing in my name. I apologise to the House that the amendment, as it appears in the Marshalled List, refers to the wrong line on the wrong page. I can assure your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend Lord St. Davids, that it is not my intention to abolish the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. But it perhaps adds to the general air of incomprehension to which other noble Lords have referred during the course of this debate.
This is the third, and positively the last, appearance of this amendment to Clause 4. Connoisseurs of draftsmanship will note the improvement to the language of this amendment to its final state of perfection. Therefore, I am particularly sorry that my noble friend the Minister has been unable to accept it in the form in which it appears. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to her for all her efforts to meet the purpose of the amendment.
But I have a serious point to make. Clause 4 is the general funding clause. It lists the activities qualifying for funding at eligible institutions by the teacher training agency under this Part of the Bill—that is, from Clause 3 to Clause 10. If any research is to be funded by the agency, the power to do so should be stated here. That is what my amendment does. It replaces the proposed power to fund all educational research with a much more specific power to fund research commissioned by the agency to underpin its policy.
What we wanted to achieve could not be achieved by these means. Apparently, the activities qualifying for funding at eligible institutions cannot include commissioned research even though there would be such activity and it would certainly be funded, and it would have to take place at an eligible institution. Nevertheless, the funding cannot be given under that clause—such is the wisdom of the law, or of the lawyers advising the Department for Education.
Even though commissioned research cannot be a qualifying activity for funding under Clause 4, that will not matter, apparently. Money will be there in any case. My noble friend the Minister has already given notice of her intention to move a new Clause 11 which gives the agency the power to undertake and commission research. Where is the money for that to come from? I searched very extensively throughout the Bill to discover that, but I could not find it. But I was wrong.
1430
Noble Lords will find in Schedule 1, paragraph 1 some supplementary powers. One of them empowers the agency to enter into contracts. I bet commissioning research was not in mind when that was put in. But never mind; one can always find a power somewhere if one looks hard enough for it. The Minister has found one which apparently does the job.
That is not the way I would have done it. I would have preferred to have commissioned research listed as one of the qualifying activities and not tacked on to efficiency studies right at the end of this section and almost as an afterthought. That will seem an affront to the research community. We were trying to ensure high quality, policy-relevant research to underpin agency policy. This research function should have been upfront and proudly displayed on the agency's banner. Its funding should not have depended on a supplementary power in a schedule clearly intended for other purposes. However, I am not going to press this matter any further. The Minister has done her best to meet us and I am very grateful for that although I feel that the matter has been dealt with in the wrong way.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in generally welcoming much about these amendments, I wish to emphasise that in our view the TTA will not only have a legitimate need, but it must have the means to commission its own research into initial teacher education. The thought of some kind of ghetto quango, uninformed by good research, is an appalling prospect. So we welcome this. These amendments provide for such research defined by the parameters of the teacher training agency's remit. Therefore they are a welcome response to the anxieties that the research which is essential to inform higher education degrees or diplomas should at the same time remain part of the integrated pattern of studies which a university might offer.
Therefore these amendments respond to the debates at Committee and Report stages and we want to commend the Minister for that. In particular, they respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in his earlier interventions. It may be that I am at fault, but I have looked at the wording of his amendment today and I am a little confused as to how it relates to what he put forward in our earlier deliberations.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke to an amendment to limit the teacher training agency to research commissioned by the funding agency,
"into the theory, practice and management of education".
He said:
"The purpose of the amendment is to give the teacher training agency the power to fund research into initial teacher training without depriving the funding councils of their responsibility for funding all other courses in education not connected with teacher training and also for funding educational research in general". —[Official Report, 10/3/94; col. 1646.]
As I have said, it may be that I am at fault, but I am confused. The noble Lord seems to have slipped from this commitment to initial teacher training. Arguably, the amendments go further than we might wish in allowing the teacher training agency to carry out as well as commission such research related to teacher training.

1431
However, we all have to be realistic about this and recognise that in practice, given its membership and structure, the TTA will commission research.
Of more concern is the widening of the definition of such research to include research to improve the training of teachers and the standards of teaching. It does not seem to us altogether to reflect what I believed then to be the careful wording of the original proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which dealt with research into the theory, practice and management of education.
The question that we have to ask and on which it would be helpful to hear more from the Minister today —emphasise that I am speaking in the context of generally welcoming what she has put forward—is: is it intended that the Teacher Training Agency should have responsibilities for teacher training other than initial teacher training? I notice that a later government amendment defines teacher training under the terms of the Bill to be,
"any training or education with the object of fitting persons to be teachers"—
that is, initial teacher training—"or better teachers", which I presume refers to in-service training. The government amendments reflect Clause 1(2) (a) which lists the objectives of the agency's functions, including,
"to contribute to raising the standards of teaching".
However, as I understand it, your Lordships have understood that to refer to funding courses and research into improving initial teacher education and training. I re-emphasise the word "initial".
So far we have not had any convincing arguments for widening the remit of the new quango to cut across existing GEST funding and the in-service training responsibilities of government, LEAs, schools and the teaching profession which have been negotiated and undertaken by those bodies. Therefore, in the security of knowing that we shall certainly not oppose what the Minister has suggested—in fact, we endorse it—it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify those points.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, although they have made important points which require to be addressed, it seems to me that both the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, have perhaps not sufficiently emphasised that the amendments that have been tabled (whether by my noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky) very much meet the earlier objections and concerns. This is the main point. Initially, we had the vision of the Teacher Training Agency not just commissioning but funding research—perhaps even funding research courses or higher education. It was empowered under paragraph (b), which will now be deleted, in respect of,
"activities qualifying for funding under this Part are … the provision of higher education in".
Happily, that is no longer the proposal. I believe that there is consensus and that both amendments recognise the fact that the general field of higher and research degrees is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council. However, Amendment No. 19 as proposed (the new clause after Clause 10) provides that,
"A funding agency may carry out or commission such research as they consider appropriate with a view to improving … the training of teachers, or … the standard of teaching."
1432
That seems reasonable. That is very much the bread and butter of the subject area of the teacher training agency.
I was a little confused by what seemed a rather arcane disputation between the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and my noble friend the Minister as to exactly where that similar wording should be placed in the Bill. I do not claim expert knowledge of where in legal terms it should be placed, but it seems to me that in proposing that those provisions should have a clause to themselves my noble friend the Minister cannot be accused of inappropriately tucking them away.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, emphasised the matter of initial and subsequent teacher training. That point had not previously seemed to me to be of overwhelming significance. I am sure that it is the business of the Teacher Training Agency to be concerned with the quality of teacher training, and research to that specific end seems entirely appropriate. Although I do not imagine that we shall have both the Minister's amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I feel that either adequately meets the case that was argued at an earlier stage when there was deep concern lest education research should somehow slip into the responsibilities of the Teacher Training Agency and away from the Higher Education Funding Council. That point has been admirably met by the amendments. I shall certainly support both, if both are moved.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, once again, at the risk of monotony, I must warmly thank the Minister for the amendment. She has accepted what was my amendment in the words in which I moved it. Had I by arty awful chance changed my mind, I would not have had the face to say so, but fortunately I have not. The amendment exactly meets the point. It will cause very great relief in the universities—not only in departments of education, but also in departments, including history. where research touches on education. It tightens and clarifies the Bill in an excellent way. I congratulate the Minister also on her judgment, on the way in which she has handled this issue since Second Reading and on the way in which she has allowed consensus in the House to evolve, to which she has now effectively given effect.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for seeing the point of compromise at a time when I was still thinking only of breathing fire and slaughter. His contribution has been extremely helpful. Of course, we have no objection to the Teacher Training Agency commissioning research. It will need to do so and obviously should have the power.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I have no views on exactly where in the Bill the clause should be placed. Since the noble Lord is an acknowledged expert on the drafting of legislation, perhaps I may suggest that the two of them present the apple to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and abide by his judgment. Wherever the clause is placed in the Bill, I am happy with it and I welcome it.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend the Minister for having so wisely judged the form of her amendments. I am particularly

1433
pleased that the funding of education as an academic discipline in its own right is not to be part of the Teacher Training Agency. I tabled an amendment on that in Committee.
However, I should like my noble friend's assurances on one point. In the debate on Report, while acknowledging the force of all the arguments for taking the funding of research out of the remit of the Teacher Training Agency, as proposed in the Bill, and putting it back with the Higher Education Funding Council, I said that, although the whole argument was finely balanced, I had some anxieties about cutting the seamless robe in such a way that initial teacher training might be left in —to take the word of the noble Lord, Lord Judd—a ghetto on its own. There is some concern, particularly among the smaller colleges which provide initial teacher training, that by having their initial teacher training facilities separated from their higher degrees in education and their research activities they will somehow find their initial teacher training downgraded.
I should like some assurance from my noble friend that when the world is divided up, as it will be, the quality of initial teacher training, its importance and its status within the field of higher education as a whole will not be diminished by the fact that the agency which funds it has no remit and no part to play in relation to higher degrees in education, which are a very important part of the further professional development of teachers —and nor will it have a part to play in the research, which is almost always undertaken by people concerned with the provision of initial teacher training.
One of the most important aspects of the training of teachers which has been pushed forward in the past 10 years is the fact that initial teacher training has been brought into the mainstream of higher education. That has given additional status and importance to the teaching profession. In their training, teachers are now the equals of those who are training as doctors, engineers, architects or in any of the other great professions. Therefore, I ask the Minister for some assurance that by removing the funding of what I might call the more straightforward higher education aspects, initial teacher training will not be seen to be downgraded but will remain an important part of the whole scene.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I had my name to amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky on previous occasions. I have not on this occasion because logistics have prevented it. My noble friend the Minister said in her opening remarks on this amendment that the ability to fund the commissioning of research was founded on Schedule 1 paragraph 1(b) which relates to entering into contracts. It is slightly surprising in legislation to have to look up a schedule which is about supplementary powers. I quite see that it is a way of fitting it into the Bill, and that my noble friend has been very ingenious. Is she certain that the commissioning of research will always be a contract? Is it possible that there may be a problem if commissioning is done in any other way? I realise that in the normal way the commissioning would specify the
1434
research required and it would be costed. It would then be put out to tender. Will that always be the case, and research will not be prevented from being commissioned in any other way?
If it is difficult to answer that question now, perhaps my noble friend will look at the issue before it gets to another place to be sure that it is in order. I also wonder whether the clause should be tucked away after Clause 10. It is a strange way of drafting a Bill. It is a serious and important business. It is an important part of the agency's work. It has arrived at a rather late stage of the Bill. These are matters at which my noble friend might look so that her right honourable friend in another place can ensure that the Bill is as well drafted as possible. I greatly welcome what my noble friend has done. It is an important point. She has done very well to achieve it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take first the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and address the point of initial and in-service training. He will notice that Clause 4 relates to the provision of teacher training. The amendments do not alter the agency's ability to fund in-service training as well as teacher training. We have heard arguments at earlier stages of the Bill from the special needs groups, in particular, that there may be some cases of in-service training being funded on a national basis as they are not being catered for effectively by current devolved arrangements. There are long courses for those intending to work in special schools. We have already mentioned courses for people working with deaf children, deaf/blind children, blind children and autistic children.
We have not prejudged the answers to that issue, but the Bill as drafted, and as it will remain following the amendments, will leave open that option, and that is in no way a threat to the generality of GEST funding which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, but will also be a useful additional option.
My noble friend Lady Perry mentioned the downgrading of ITT. I take her point. As I said earlier, there are some possible dangers in dividing responsibilities, as now proposed. That probably reflects too the agonising of my noble friend Lady Perry in our previous debates as to whether those changes should be made. I believe that we can look to higher education institutions to ensure that the necessary cross-fertilisation takes place. Indeed, in my initial remarks I stressed, first, that that would be an important function for higher education; and, secondly, that the attention of the agency and indeed Ofsted would be directed to quality issues. I do not believe that we need have any fears that standards will suffer. Indeed, I hope that it will be quite the reverse.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked some questions about commissioning research and thought that it was strange that one would have to look to the schedule for the funding mechanism for research. First, it is important—it was a point made on all sides of the House —that whatever the funding for general research, the agency should have specific powers to commission research, and that we have secured in the new

1435
amendment. So the agency is given the function, and the mechanism for funding is in Schedule 1 paragraph 1(b) and it is contractual.
The other question that my other noble friend posed was whether that would always be the case. If we are talking about commissioning research, first, there will have to be a specification for that research; and, secondly, there will have to be someone to do the research. To that extent, it will be a contract between the agency drawing up the specification and commissioning the research from an individual or a body, following the normal methodology for doing that. The relationship between the agency and those doing research will be contractual.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The agency will also be able to undertake research, and that does not involve commissioning. Is that also covered?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was going to come to that. Research commissioned will inevitably be a form of contract between the body commissioning and whoever does it. The other kind of research which is also allowed for in the Bill, both in terms of spending and in relation to its functions, is research that the agency will be able to undertake itself. It will be limited in scope because it will not have the expertise to do basic fundamental research. It will be able to do some survey work or something that will underpin information that will be valuable to it and perhaps valuable in advising my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is covered that it has, first, the power to do that work; and, secondly, has the mechanism for funding it.
I am advised, in answer to my noble friend Lady Carnegy who raised the point about Schedule 1 paragraph 1, that research will always be commissioned under contract. She asked whether that power will be adequate. I am told that it is adequate. The opening lines of the paragraph are probably worth putting on record. The preamble to Schedule 1 provides:
"The agency may, subject to sub-paragraph (2), do anything which appears to them to he necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of their functions, including in particular",
and it goes on to list some of its functions. I believe that the point is covered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("or (b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Grants, loans and other payments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 37, leave out (", (b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provisions supplementary to s.5]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("the desirability of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to Clause 6. As it reads, Clause 6 encourages the TTA to introduce school-centred courses by suggesting that
1436
there must be a balance and that to promote such courses is desirable. This amendment does not prevent school-centred courses, but does prevent a subjective and politically biased approach being foisted upon the TTA which the Minister says will be independent and with proven experience relevant to teacher training.
Existing pilot schemes for school-centred courses have revealed problems with such an approach. Local teachers have recognised the benefits in terms of the professional development of teachers involved as mentors and in terms of working in partnership with higher education. But teachers have been concerned that, first, insufficient time has been provided by initial teacher training mentors to complete the necessary preparation and evaluation of students, and also have contact time with students in schools; secondly, sufficient funding has not been made available to implement the scheme; thirdly, the observation methods being used presented serious difficulties; for example, trying to fit to Ofsted criteria; and, fourthly, reservations about the lack of theoretical grounding for students have, been reinforced by the present experience, as have concerns about pupils' entitlement to quality teaching.
Those are legitimate concerns raised by teachers in schools providing largely school-based courses, which would be exacerbated in schools providing wholly school-centred courses. In Committee and on Report we debated and argued against wholly school-centred courses. We have argued against the provisions in Clause 4(2) (b) allowing listing of any school as an eligible institution for funding by the TTA.
As amended, the Bill entitles "any school" to funding under the terms of Clause 4 for the purpose of carrying out teacher training courses and gives schools the power to provide courses of ITT under the terms of Clause 11.
Given those provisions in Clauses 4 and 11, given the objectives and functions of the TTA, given the experience of its members and given the powers of direction by the Secretary of State, it is surely wrong for us to specify on the face of the Bill that the funding agency shall positively discriminate or promote an unproven form of teacher training courses over any other course.
The Minister has argued against unnecessary words being on the face of the Bill that add nothing of value; Clause 6(2) can be classed as such an example. At the very least the Minister has to acknowledge that the choice of the word "desirability" is inappropriate to this Bill.
The Minister has repeatedly emphasised that neither the Government nor the agency will be forcing schools to take on the extra responsibilities of school-centred courses. Clause 6 does leave some cause for concern. The TTA's ability to operate financial incentives, including for capital projects, must be faced honestly and realistically, as must its potential effects.
On the one hand, the Minister makes assurances that the TTA will fund courses only on the basis of quality; and yet, on the other hand, there appears to be an implicit belief in the inherent desirability of diversity, no matter what its consequences for the credibility and

1437
quality of teachers' qualifications or for the infrastructure of the provision of educational studies in higher education.
If we eliminate the words "the desirability of", as the amendment proposes, there will, I am sure, be greater confidence in many quarters in the operation of the agency. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a curious amendment. It does not affect the main purpose of Clause 6 in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady David, intends. I am advised that as a result of the amendment the agency may have an even firmer duty to secure a balance between school-centred and other courses.
Perhaps I may read the clause as it would stand if the amendment were agreed to.
"In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for qualifying activities the funding agencies shall have regard"—
no longer to the desirability, but to,
"establishing and maintaining in relation to courses for initial training of school teachers an appropriate balance".
Therefore, they will be detailed to have regard to the balance without regard to the desirability of the balance. That is rather strange. The agency may also have a duty to avoid discouraging institutions from maximising their independent sources of funding. If it were clear that the drafting were adequate to guarantee those matters, I might even have supported the amendment. However, I am advised that even that is not possible because the amendment is defective.
I have already explained in previous debates why I consider these two functions in Clause 6 to be important. I believe it bears repeating that the balance between school-centred courses and other courses will to some extent be determined by schools themselves. Schools will not be forced by the agency into entering into such schemes. The agency will, however, need to have regard to the balance between the two sectors if it is to plan effectively. I remind the House that in setting the balance, the agency will have to have regard to its statutory objectives of quality and cost-effectiveness, and will have a long time horizon. The agency will, for example, need to ensure that it funds institutions which will be able to expand provision to meet future upturns in demand for new teachers. The setting of a balance may work to the advantage of higher education in such respects. It is interesting that noble Lords opposite can only imagine threats to higher education in the notion of balance, rather than welcome an even-handed approach devoted to the best quality of teacher training.
As regards the second limb in Clause 6, in an earlier debate I gave an assurance to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that there was no hidden attempt to pressure institutions into seeking other sources of funding. It is a protection to ensure that the agency does not automatically penalise them for any non-agency funding that they might receive. That is exactly in line with the provision which we already have
1438
in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in respect of the relationship of the funding council and higher education institutions.
For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment, which is in any case defective, and I hope that it will not be pressed.
As regards the issue of bias, I am advised that the Bill does not impose any requirement to promote any type of training. It is entirely neutral as to the balance that is appropriate. That there will be a balance is a fact of life; school-centred courses are here to stay. Two issues arise. First, now that we are no longer considering the desirability of obtaining the right balance, we have a firm direction that they should consider the balance. Secondly, the comments which the noble Baroness made in introducing the amendment confused not the school-centred-only courses but the courses that are run by higher education institutions with schools, where money passes from higher education institutions to schools. We have said time and time again that there certainly is scope for more money to pass from higher education institutions to schools. As regards the school-centred courses about which I am talking and the balance referred to in the Bill, the money is on all fours with that given to higher education.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, the Bill was not clear to the many people who asked for this amendment. The inclusion of the words "the desirability of" suggests that there is a preference and an enthusiasm to encourage school-centred courses when perhaps a school might not be ready to accept them. To a certain extent, the Minister has been reassuring.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that if schools are not prepared to accept the courses, it will not apply to undertake them. No school will undertake school-centred courses unless it, through the governing body, applies to do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. There was a misunderstanding, and perhaps the clause is not clear enough and is not drafted well enough. There has been a misunderstanding in a good many quarters about exactly what the intentions are. Perhaps the Minister ought to realise that and the fact that there will need to be guidance about what is intended in the clause.
Clearly, if the matter is to be followed up it will have to be followed up in another place and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 45, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("( ) In exercising their functions a funding agency shall require the governing body of any institution which provides a course of initial teacher training to publish and make available to each student—

(a) the profile of the academic content of the course, set out so that each student shall have reasonable expectations as to what he will be required to study in each fortnight of the course in question;

1439

(b) where appropriate, the amount of time which will be spent teaching students to teach children how to read and write English. and by what methods;

(c) the reading list which is proposed for the course in question;

(d) the names of any external examiners appointed to report on the course to the institution at which the course is proposed;

(e) the publications, if any, of those who are to teach the Course;

(f) the teaching workload of those teaching the course, giving the number of hours per week and the number of weeks per annum that teachers on the course are contracted to leach their students either in lectures or in tutorials or other small groups;

(g) the workload of those teaching the course in any other activities related to the course, such as the marking of students' papers; and

(h) the amount of time which the course teachers have spent teaching in schools, together with the names of the schools in question.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for tabling the amendment that was agreed on Report. It now appears as Clause 6(5) of the Bill. However, I hope that my noble friend will not think me churlish for tabling an amendment similar to that which I spoke to on Report and in Committee.
I have done so because I have carefully read Hansard for 28th March to see what my noble friend said in cols. 920 and 921. As a result, I am also grateful for what she said on that occasion.
However, the full detail of what she said on Report is not reflected in Clause 6(5) of the Bill as now drafted. I am still unhappy to leave the detail of what is to be published by institutions running teacher education courses entirely to the decision of the new agency.
My reticence in this regard is inspired by my experience on the Council for National Academic Awards. When we were sometimes in possession of some of the information which this amendment seeks to make public, I am afraid that we judged that it should remain confidential between the institution and ourselves. That was especially true when the information reflected badly on the institution concerned.
I accept that this may be one of the faults and temptations of self-regulation. In saying that, I make no special criticism of academe. Indeed, my experience of self-regulation in the City merely underlines my distrust of self-regulation in general. That, unfortunately was confirmed by my experience of higher education. That is why I am unhappy to leave the detail of what is to be revealed publicly—what one might call the "citizen's charter aspects" of the agency's activity—entirely to the agency.
The majority of the active members of the agency will be representatives of academe. There will be some difficulty —I think that there usually is—in getting businessmen and others, as recommended in the Bill, to be sufficiently active in the agency. I may be wrong and I hope that I shall be proved wrong. But be that as it may, I wonder if I could ask my noble friend whether she can say any more now than she said on Report as to which details of this amendment will indeed be accepted by the new agency as being for public consumption.
On Report my noble friend said that this aspect of the agency's work would be addressed in a remit letter which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State
1440
would send to the agency. Upon reflection, I have to say that I believe that all the information requested by this amendment should be made public and I wonder if my noble friend can go any further than she did on Report to give me some comfort as to how this may be achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I very much hope that the House will not accept this further invasion into the running of institutions.
Noble Lords may remember that the most eminent person who ever held the old office of President of the Board of Education and subsequently became an academic, as he had been before, was extremely proud of his period as a member of government. He used always to regale his visitors with reminiscences of his activities as a Minister. When they were foreign, he addressed them, in his somewhat imperfect French, with the words, "Quand j'étais dans le Cabinet", which, as noble Lords will understand, was not precisely what he had in mind.
I recount that agreeable anecdote not merely to raise our spirits after a very long period of technical debate but also to draw the obvious analogy with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. For him, his experience on the CNAA was obviously as important in his life as his experience as a Minister was in the life of Warden Fisher. Why it figures so largely and why it has obviously induced in the noble Lord a hatred of higher education is something which, if he attains the eminence of a biography, a biographer, perhaps with Freudian assistance, may be able to explain.
Over and over again, the noble Lord has interrupted our proceedings by venting his bile upon higher education and its institutions. I hope that in this case, the House will have no more of it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I should like to add to the castigation offered by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I hesitate to criticise, but I feel that I must criticise the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has tabled the same amendment in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading.
I spoke against the amendment in Committee. I well understand that that had no effect on the thinking of my noble friend Lord Pearson. I cannot say that that is a matter about which to be surprised or concerned. However, I have before me his own words on Report.
He said at col. 918:
"I confess that some of the detail which my amendment asks for may be a little too exact. I shall be quite happy not to see displayed the teaching workload of those teaching the course",
and so on, because there was some criticism of that kind. I remind the House, as did my noble friend Lord Pearson, that in the same debate on Report, the Minister's amendment was carried with the intention of meeting at least some of those points which are now contained in Clause 6(5) of the Bill as presently drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, went on to say in relation to paragraph (b)—and I expect that it is still paragraph (b) because it seems to be obdurately unmodified —that:

1441
"Although it is very important, it is perhaps inappropriate in this particular amendment".—[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 918.]
If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, had had the courtesy to modify his amendment in the light of the debates in Committee and on Report and in the light of his own observations on the amendment, we might have had a better amendment before the House at this stage. As it is, I take exception to being obliged to speak against an amendment in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading when the noble Lord himself accepted some of its imperfections. It seems to me that he asks for everything except the maternal name of the grand-mother of the engine driver. That is excessive and I should be happier if the noble Lord would take such points a little earlier in the life history of a Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, unlike my noble friend, I was not conscious of being obliged to speak against my noble friend's amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. But I feel under some obligation to do so now.
It seems to me to be carrying eccentricity a little too far to place upon a funding agency a duty, which it may not want, to tell the governing body how to carry out its business. I am not quite sure whether it is my noble friend's intention to start a violent struggle between the two bodies, but I believe that this would be a good way in which to achieve that. I cannot really believe that that is his intention. I hope that the Minister will have no hesitation in rejecting the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, it certainly brought some life to the debate anyway, which is perhaps an improvement. I rather hesitate after three noble Lords on the Government Benches have criticised their noble friend's amendment to do so, but I certainly cannot help but do so. I think it is monstrous, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, to have the same amendment three times and against all the rules. I am surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted it.
The noble Lord himself said that perhaps it might be difficult to get governors to come in with business experience, but if the governors must have all that, and the heads and the teachers, their workload will be even worse than it is now. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will not waste much time in dispatching the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suspect that the Public Bill Office accepted this amendment in the way that it accepted a number of amendments which are on the Marshalled List today which are verbatim copies of those tabled at previous stages of the Bill.
Subsection (5) requires the funding agencies to take steps to ensure that all providers of initial teacher training make available such information about their courses as the agencies think appropriate. I accept, in line with the principles of the Higher Education Charter, that institutions should provide clear and detailed information about their provision to students and to applicants. My noble friend's amendment covers only students already enrolled on courses. It is equally important for potential students to have access to full
1442
and accurate information if they are to make an informed choice between courses at different institutions. Subsection (5) is open about the recipients of the information, allowing requirements about the manner of publication and intended recipients to be determined by the agency and adjusted as necessary in the light of experience.
As I said on Report, I support the principle behind many of the detailed points covered within this amendment. However, we have deliberately not specified the precise information to be provided to various recipients because I do not think that in the narrow confines of our debates on the Bill it would be possible to arrive at exactly the right list of information. In any case, specifying a precise list in primary legislation would not give the agencies the necessary flexibility to alter the list in the light of experience or discussions with the institutions concerned and other interested bodies.
As I also said on Report, it would not surprise me if the requirements set by the agency have much in common with my noble friend's suggestions. However, I hope that my noble friend will accept that the existing subsection (5) allows the agencies to require all the information that his amendment covers to be made available, should they wish, without the unhelpful constraints of a list in primary statute.
I am sure that the agency will look back at our debates in order to understand the aims of this provision of the Bill and ensure it is applied in the way that has commanded general agreement in this House, although it was not such general agreement. But, in any event, my right honourable friend will most certainly make known to the agency his strongly-held views about the importance of good information to students undertaking teacher training. That will be reflected in his initial remit letter to the agency, which will also stress the importance of the Citizen's Charter approach and therefore of addressing the information needs of students. My officials will stand ready to discuss this, as with other aspects of the agency's remit, but it must be for the agency to determine that in its own way.
We must beware of shackling the freedom of such an independent body. I cannot say that the full list of information requirements which my noble friend favours will be set out in terms in a formal remit letter. Indeed, there are one or two aspects of the amendment about which it would be rather difficult to be very definitive. Such a letter will have a wide scope and must beware of trespassing on the agency's autonomy. We have set up an independent body and must allow it discretion to pursue its broad objectives without undue interference. But I can say that I will ensure that these debates, and the support which specific aspects of my noble friend's amendment (and the principle behind it) have received, will be drawn to the agency's attention. We shall watch very carefully how the agency chooses to follow that up and offer further guidance if there are problems.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend, whom I thank again for raising the issue on the importance of information about courses to students, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who contributed to the debate. I certainly found it more exciting than some of our earlier deliberations this afternoon. However, I should like to tell my noble friend Lord Beloff that I believe that he makes very well for me one of the points that I often make about those engaged in higher education when he says that he regards the amendment, and the spirit which lies behind it, as an invasion into the affairs of education. My amendment does not invade anything: it merely asks for various items to be set out publicly so that students and, shall we say, the taxpayer (who very often is funding such courses) can see exactly what is going on.
I have no issue to take with my noble friend's foray into the French language, except to disagree with him and say that I certainly do not have a hatred of higher education. I must tell him that, unfortunately, my experience as a representative of commerce who actually turned up at pretty well every academic meeting that I was supposed to attend over a period of 10 years is rare. I believe chat I have an unusual insight into higher education as a result which, of course, does not accord with the views of those who work in it. I actually have an enormous respect for higher education, especially for what I call the "harder" subjects, and I should like to put that on the record. However, I have a different view of what I call the "softer" subjects in higher education, particularly the social sciences and the humanities. Now is not the time to dwell on the subject, but in view of what has been said by noble and academic Lords, I have quite a mind to bring the matter back as a subject of separate debate on a later occasion.
I turn now to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It is true that in moving the amendment on the last occasion I felt that some of the detail of it was perhaps too prescriptive. However, in moving the amendment today I thought that I made it clear when I said that, upon reflection and upon receiving quite a lot of advice from people who think as I do in higher education and who know about higher education, it would be very helpful if all the proposed requirements were publicly displayed. They would not be invading anyone; they would simply be on public display.
As regards the two requirements which my noble friend picked on, I believe that the business of showing how much time will be spent in teaching students to teach children how to read and write English and by what method lies at the root of our teacher education problems. For example, if the phonic method of teaching children how to read had been more widely espoused by the teacher education establishment over the past 30 years, it would have been very much better for the standards of literacy and numeracy in our society today.
Likewise, the teaching workload of those teaching the course is something that I believe ought to be on display. Again, I have a very different view of that workload when referring to academics in teacher training—or teacher education as it is usually called —or in the social sciences and the humanities, than do noble and academic Lords who speak for higher education in this House. However, I am afraid that I am
1444
not in the least bit chastened by the broadsides that I have received. I believe that it would be helpful if we were to return to the issue on a later occasion to discuss such matters in greater detail.
Having said that, and being entirely unrepentant, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her speech which came as a considerable comfort to me in the circumstances. I accept what she said about the pressures that could be put on the agency to make public the matters raised in the amendment. In that spirit, I have great pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Efficiency studies]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 6, after ("person") insert ("approved by the Audit Commission").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for returning to the subject. However, during the Report stage the Minister and I had, one of our livelier exchanges on the matter. I believe that we rather came to cross-purposes late at night and perhaps unnecessarily misunderstood each other.
As I understand it, the Minister did not want the Audit Commission to have a monopoly in the area. For our part, on this side of the House we were concerned about the proper accountability and recognised the experience and insight already gained by the commission. We see that experience and insight as being highly relevant. After careful consideration, it still seems to us to be very clear that the public will be best reassured if there is provision that the Audit Commission should at least approve the people proposed to undertake studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in management.
The more that I look at the wording of Clause 10 —and I have spent some time doing so—the more concerned I am by its ambiguity. Frankly, at the very least it seems to me that it may just be a case of bad drafting. Subsection (1) reads:
"A funding agency may arrange for the promotion or carrying out by any person of [such] studies".
However, it is far from clear who will be responsible for the appointment of the person to undertake the work. I believe that that underlines the importance of our amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to take the point and reassure us this evening. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I made one or two remarks which might have been thought to be a little harsh about an earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, he has now given me the opportunity to balance things and to say that not only do I congratulate him on the wording of the amendment but that I do so also on its substance.
Perhaps I may take my noble friend the Minister back to some of the arguments which took place on the subject of grant-maintained schools in debate on another Bill. I then gained the very strong impression that there was a certain departmental hostility towards the Audit Commission. I believe that one of the most sensible and commendable things that the Government have done in

1445
years was to establish that commission which in many ways is far more effective than any other body I know in checking the way that public funds are spent.
I am astonished by the looseness of the wording of Clause 10. Subsection (1) says:
"A funding agency may arrange for the promotion or carrying out by any person",
of such studies. There is no reference to qualifications or some sort of examination or external test; indeed, there is nothing. It just refers to "any person". In other words, there is no reason why I should not be asked to undertake the task, although I believe that my contribution on the subject would be absolutely useless.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships that there is no deep-rooted prejudice against the Audit Commission in her department. The only way that my noble friend can do so with ease is to accept the amendment. I very much hope that she will.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment seems to be extremely reasonable and on listening to his argument my opinion of it has improved. If the noble Baroness does not think the Audit Commission is a suitable body, will she when she replies tell us exactly who would be suitable? Unless we know which body is considered suitable, surely it would seem sensible to have the Audit Commission as a bench-mark.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again there is some confusion as regards what this whole exercise is about. We are talking about value for money studies and not about audit. Once again I am obliged to explain the Government's position on this small but potentially important area of the Teacher Training Agency's work.
Clause 10 empowers the agency to commission value-for-money studies to ensure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management and operation of funded institutions. We remain convinced that this is best achieved by the agency being able to choose between competitive tenders. This is in line with the wider policy that open competition should be encouraged wherever possible. It is also a freedom that the Higher Education Funding Council for England enjoys and has made good use of. It is inconceivable that if the agency wants a value-for-money study to be undertaken it will give it to an unqualified body to carry out.
It is entirely right that the Audit Commission, with its expertise in this area, should be able to tender for such work. However, the noble Lord's amendment would create a monopoly and that cannot be in the interests of improving value-for-money, which is after all the aim of this work. Although the amendment refers to persons approved by the Audit Commission, a monopoly on approval is still nevertheless a monopoly. Furthermore, there is no precedent for such a restriction being placed upon other non-departmental public bodies. This is more than a matter of historical interest: the bulk of the agency's funds will go to institutions which will also be funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for
1446
England. It is entirely possible that the two bodies will wish to commission joint studies; this is the kind of co-operative working that we would wish to encourage between the two bodies. Not only does this amendment restrict the agency's choice, but it will limit its chance of working with the funding council to commission joint studies of this kind. Moreover, other bodies are not restricted in their choice of agents. They would be unlikely to agree to suffer a restriction just to allow for joint working with the agency.
The noble Lord seems to be under some confusion as to what this clause deals with. The clause empowers the agency to commission value-for-money studies across all or some of its funded institutions to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is not concerned with the auditing arrangements of all the individual institutions that it funds. These will remain unchanged. What we are dealing with here is whether we should restrict the decisions of one body—the Teacher Training Agency—in its choice of agent to carry out these studies. I do not believe that such a restriction is necessary or desirable.
The noble Lord is concerned about propriety and accountability in the way the agency's funds are used; the need for this is not in dispute. I do not understand why the noble Lord doubts that the agency can be trusted to ensure that it uses appropriate bodies to carry out this work. Ultimately, the agency's use of public funds will be audited by the National Audit Office, and the agency will of course be accountable for all its decisions to the Public Accounts Committee. I have promised this House that an annual report will be made available to Members of Parliament, as the agency is a transparent organisation. For the reasons that I have given I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to the drafting of the Bill. One clause exactly repeats the provisions of Section 83 of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked who will make the appointments we are discussing. The appointments will be made by the agency using its own money or jointly by the agency and the Higher Education Funding Council. For all of those reasons—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope I can intervene. The fact that one clause of the Bill repeats the provisions of a section of the 1992 Act does not make it any more acceptable to me—very much the reverse. I believe that my noble friend is doing violence to language when she refers to the Audit Commission—set up by the Government —as having a monopoly on approval. That seems to me to be inappropriate language and reveals what I suspect is a deep-found prejudice against the Audit Commission within her department.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that I am my own person as a Minister in this House and I believe I have proved that beyond doubt during the course of the passage of the Bill through this House. Further, I am on record as being the one person —I believe this is so—in the whole of local government who wrote to Sir John Banham to welcome his appointment to the Audit Commission. My colleagues

1447
in local government viewed the Audit Commission as a kind of policeman and did not welcome any interference by it in their affairs. However, I viewed the Audit Commission as a positive adjunct to our local government affairs. Indeed, I invited Sir John Banham, as one of his first duties, to examine what we were doing in my local authority and to give us either his blessing if he thought we were doing things properly or to instruct us, through his audit, how we could improve the way we were doing things. I have no prejudices whatsoever and if I detected a prejudice among my officials I certainly would not allow them to influence me at the Dispatch Box.
I should refer to the schizophrenia of this place. This House did not impose this kind of constraint on the Higher Education Funding Council, which is spending billions of pounds more than the agency will be spending. We have chosen not to put a constraint on that expenditure. I do not know why there is such prejudice in this House not against the Audit Commission but against the Teacher Training Agency. It would appear that noble Lords believe that the agency cannot be trusted in what is an important but in financial terms a relatively minor part of its work; namely, to appoint persons or bodies to carry out value-for-money studies. There is no prejudice on my part. I believe the arrangement in the Bill is a perfectly sensible arrangement. We must not confuse value-for-money studies with audit arrangements because there are plenty of audit arrangements in place. Indeed, the National Audit Office will be interested in the operations of the Teacher Training Agency.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope she will clarify the words "by competitive tender" which she used. Does that mean that the cheapest option will be adopted? One could understand it if that were the case, except that I should have thought it was highly inappropriate to choose the cheapest option with regard to the matter we are discussing. Since when has cheapest been best?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed again to be so presumptuous as to pray in aid my record on this matter. To choose between competitive tenders does not mean that the cheapest option will necessarily be adopted. It means that the agency would prepare a specification and as long as a company could meet that specification—in other words, the standard set in the specification for the work—and could do it cost-effectively, then clearly the most cost-effective tender would be accepted. However, a tender would not necessarily be accepted simply because it was the cheapest option if it was not felt that work would be delivered to the quality set out in the specification. Therefore I repeat that competitive tender does not always necessarily mean that the cheapest option will be taken.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I really cannot say just that I find that reply disappointing: I am disturbed by it. I refer again to what I mentioned earlier in our proceedings today. There is a growing and deep anxiety in this House at the degree to which the responsibility for public
1448
administration is moving to non-accountable bodies outside our democratic system; namely, to quangos. We are talking here about the whole sphere of operation of a quango.
The Minister tried to reassure us this evening by saying that the Government believed that the best approach to this matter was through competitive tendering. My noble friend Lord Dormand questioned what the Minister meant by competitive tendering. I hope she will forgive me if I say that we have yet another example in this ill conceived and ill prepared Bill of the Government thinking on the hoof when the Minister gave an interpretation of what she meant by competitive tendering. Clearly there has been no detailed consideration of it. Furthermore, in looking at this clause again, one finds that the wording just does not stand up. Clause 10(1) states:
"A funding agency may arrange for the promotion or carrying out by any person of studies designed to improve economy".
However, the clause says nothing about how the person performing this function is to be appointed and what is meant by making arrangements. That could mean anything. It seems to me that there is another reason for anxiety as regards the approach of the Minister. I hope she will forgive me if I am doing her an injustice, and if I am she will no doubt tell me and I will apologise if she persuades me that I am doing her an injustice. But it seems to me that she lives in an artificial world of theory. In reality we have hard-pressed people trying to run schools. They are trying to improve the quality of education. In addition, they are being given more and more responsibility for the detailed administration, for which they may or may not be qualified. Now they are being encouraged to take on responsibility for preparing teachers as well, on top of everything else. There comes a breaking point. There are not groups of people all over the country who have all the skills which the Government expect to be deployed in the tasks which they are now putting upon the schools.
Then a problem arises. It is thought that it would be good to have a review of the situation to see how economy, efficiency and effectiveness could be improved. The Minister says that this is not a question of money and it is not an audit of finances. However, it is about money because effectiveness is concerned with ensuring that we get the best possible results for the public expenditure which goes into the operation. In the end everything relates to the public funds that are being provided. It is an artificial nonsense to pretend that it does not.
I am sorry to put it this way, but this is what will happen. Nobody doubts that there will be a genuine anxiety but there is a danger that a cosy and comfortable arrangement will be made. It will not necessarily be explicit but it will exist, and we will not be assured that the matter is being looked at as objectively and toughly as it should be.
It is not as though there were not already reason for anxiety, as I said at Report stage. There is already evidence of things going wrong in the school area. That is not because people are wicked or are crooks but because they do not have the skills, the understanding and the experience to do the job that is expected of them.

1449
It is not good enough to surrender responsibility to a quango outside the normal accountable arrangements which we have in our dispersed democracy of central democracy and local democracy and to move into this slovenly thinking about how matters should be administered. Even at this hour, and even if I inconvenience the House as we approach dinner, there is such a fundamental issue of principle involved that I must divide the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may intervene. This is not a slovenly act. This is a transparent organisation which has to be publicly accountable and produce public reports which will be made available to Parliament. It will be answerable to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. It will be answerable to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
With gay abandon, arms flailing all over the place, the noble Lord talks about schools being forced and imposed upon to produce these school-based teacher training courses. They are not. Can the noble Lord point to any single part of this Bill under which a school can be forced or imposed upon to produce these school-based teacher training courses? If he can I shall defer to his arguments.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister puts forward a perfectly reasonable challenge. I am saying that this clause is so badly designed that one could drive a coach and horses through it. I believe that it will give grounds in the future for endless dispute as to what was intended. Even simply on the grounds of drafting it is not good enough. However, there are much more fundamental issues at stake which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, put even more powerfully than I can. Therefore, I have no alternative but to divide the House.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addington, L. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bridges, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kennet, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lawrence, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fitt, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Mulley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

1450

Park of Monmouth, B.

Serota, B

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Shepherd, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L

Prys-Davies, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Quinton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Russell, E.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hooper, B.

Aldington, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Annaly, L.

Kenyon, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norfolk, D.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northbourne, L.

Courtown, E.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cranborne, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Prentice, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodney, L.

Dormer, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Downshire, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elibank, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flather, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

[Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Holderness, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Research
(". A funding agency may carry out or commission such research as they consider appropriate with a view to improving—

(a) the training of teachers, or

(b) the standards of teaching.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power of schools to provide courses of initial teacher training]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6. line 42, at end insert:
("(5A) (a) In relation to the powers conferred by subsection (1) the governing body shall prepare in writing a report of the proposals to provide courses of initial teacher training and a summary of the report.
(b) The governing body shall, without delay, send the report and summary to the Teacher Training Agency and to the local education authority, the Secretary of State and, in the case of a voluntary school, the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.
(c) The governing body shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the summary as soon as is reasonably practicable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 21. These amendments are another attempt to make certain that all involved, in particular parents, are well informed about any proposals for school-centred courses at the school their children are attending and the likely consequences of these proposals.
At Committee stage, the Minister said:
"In the light of our wider reforms … I do not think that any school would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and in due course demonstrate to local parents that the effect was beneficial to their pupils".—[Official Report, 14/3/94; col. 36.]
At Report stage, she said:
"[The amendments] require consultation with parents and others, and make arrangements for a ballot to be requested, before a school can provide a course. We must not get the provision of a course for teacher training out of perspective. It is an important matter. But the way in which the school is run and funded, the number and nature of pupils it will accept and the obligation on governors to offer all children access to a curriculum which meets the requirements of the law and spend their entire school budget to that effect are all completely unaffected by the running of a school-centred course.
"It is those matters that require consultation before schools become self-governing or change their character … But in this Bill we are talking about activities which must not detract from the school's central purpose but can and will enhance its strength". —[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 939.]
The Minister's statement was very subjective. The school's activities as listed by the Minister in the quotation I have just read will he affected by the running of a school-centred teacher training course. They cannot help being affected. The teachers will be performing a different function.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 20, ensures that such consultation takes place by, at the very least, providing those affected with information relating to the proposals so that comments can be made before final decisions are made.
The second amendment relates specifically to consultation with parents. The Minister has said that she thinks that no school. would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and, in due course, demonstrate to local parents that the effect would be beneficial to their pupils. So I can see no reason, in view of what she said before, why she should not accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is the first of the nanny amendments. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would explain what is meant by paragraph (5B) (a) (i) of Amendment No. 21:
"the parents of registered parents at the school".
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry, it must be a misprint. It should read:
"the parents of registered children".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is too late to alter amendments at this stage and therefore the amendment is as I thought and is effective.
Schools are already now more accountable to parents for their performance due to the publication of annual reports, examination results and the regular cycle of Ofsted inspections. Parents can act on this information via their representation on the governing body which again is stronger than ever before, and through the greater exercise of parental choice.
Parents also have clearer channels of information about the school's general activities—including an opportunity to meet the governing body at least annually to discuss school affairs. Under this Government, parents have more rights and more opportunities to influence what happens in their children's school than under any other government in history.
In the light of this it is frankly inconceivable that a school could undertake a school-centred scheme without the parents knowing about it, and therefore having had an opportunity to express their views on it. I therefore do not think we need add any more statutory, bureaucratic and time-consuming layers to the process of school involvement in initial teacher training.
We must be clear that—as I said at the last stage —what is at issue here is not a change to the status or funding or admissions policy of the school. The obligation to pupils is unchanged, the basic school budget cannot be used to support the involvement in teacher training.
Like countless schools before them, which have devoted time and energy without payment to supporting student teachers, schools may want to offer their own courses out of a sense of professional commitment and because they know that such involvement can enhance the whole school, its staff and ultimately the pupils. It has always been thus. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, thinks, this is not an imposed treasure, it is an opportunity where schools themselves believe they are suited to the purpose and pass all the rigours of accreditation.
But it is not the schools which are working without payment which are targeted by this amendment, nor is it the growing number which, as the reforms take effect, are now being given a share of higher education funding for their involvement in training. Noble Lords opposite do not want those schools to have to tell parents what is going on. These amendments would apply only to those schools which wanted to choose a school-centred option: "You can do anything you like in our schools, but if you want to do school-centred training, you must be subject to this amendment".
The narrow bias of the amendment is therefore clear. Of course, there is a real point to address about keeping

1453
parents informed about any school's involvement in teacher training. But that is another point best left to common sense rather than statute. The fact of the matter is that no school would volunteer to be involved,—and I mean "volunteer" to be involved—in a school-centred or any other scheme unless it firmly believed that it would be beneficial and could be demonstrated to be so to the parents.
The amendments are also technically deficient. I have already noted a technicality. They would impose a very odd duty without a timescale or any guidance as to what is intended. Does the "report of the proposals" to provide a course have to be prepared before or after funding has been secured? That is not made clear in the amendment. What must it contain? That is not made clear in the amendment. How long is the summary and what must it contain? That is not made clear in the amendment. When must the meeting with parents be held—before or after a decision is made? That is not made clear by the amendment. By borrowing the shape but not the detail of other provisions, noble Lords opposite have left us with a very odd set of requirements.
I believe that we should rest on the now much more firmly established arrangements for school accountability and not add another nannying requirement about one particular type of school activity. We should certainly not do so simply to pursue a vendetta against one particular type of teacher training course. For teacher training in schools with higher education, there are no information requirements whatever. School-centred teacher training schools, where the schools are in the lead, are subject to the rigours of this amendment. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
7 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could she say how the parents are going to know about what is happening—those who are not on the governing body?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the parents are on the governing body. The governing body must make the application, produce the plans, say how the course will be produced and be accredited as suitable to produce the course. It is the conduit for parent information, and parents will know about it. We know that most of these courses go over the full year, so the parents will know at the beginning, during or at the end of the year that teachers are being trained in the school.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do think that it is rather extraordinary after all that the Minister has said before about how important the involvement of parents is that she dismisses these amendments so summarily. I really am surprised at that after I quoted from what she had said before on two different occasions, in Committee and on Report. I am quite prepared to admit that the amendments are defective. But that, after all, could have been corrected either by the Government themselves or in another place. I am disappointed with the reply. It remains to be seen what happens, but I have
1454
the greatest misgivings that there will be a lack of information. However, at this stage of the evening I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Qualification of teachers, &c.]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Duty to provide information, &c.]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert:
(""training", in relation to teachers, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (3A) below.").
Page 10, line 17, at end insert:
("(3A) It is hereby declared that references in this Part (and elsewhere in the Education Acts) to training, in relation to teachers, include any training or education with the object of fitting persons to be teachers, or better teachers.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, you will know from previous debates and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that my concern has been to avoid introducing the term teacher "education" which could have an untoward effect on the interpretation of previous legislation. We have certainly never had any problem with the principle that the education element is every bit as important a part of a teacher's preparation as the element of training in, for example, classroom skills. Teacher training as a term in legislation, and in the training departments and institutions that provide it, has always spanned both these elements. These amendments put beyond doubt that the term "teacher training" includes teacher education. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are naturally glad that, albeit at the eleventh hour, the Government have accepted this principle about education, and we want to express our gratitude for that. I shall not go over all the arguments again. It would be quite inappropriate. In our view it is tremendously important and we are glad to see that this concession has been made.
There is just one small point on which I would appreciate the Minister's fuller observations. Amendment No. 27 properly defines teacher training as,
"any training or education with the object of fitting persons to be teachers, or better teachers",
thereby including all teacher training and not simply initial teacher training.
However, the amendment also makes it clear that that definition applies to references in this part, and elsewhere in the education Acts, to training. By clarifying the term "teacher training" the Minister seems to have indicated the ability of the Teacher Training Agency to fund teacher training courses and research beyond simply initial teacher training. We referred to that point in our deliberations earlier this evening. It would be good to have the Minister's interpretation of this situation. Is that the Government's intention?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that I have given a very full answer in regard to the teacher training which goes beyond initial teacher training and in-service training. I wonder whether I could refer the noble Lord to the answer that I gave to a previous question covering this point.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Requirements to be observed in relation to students' unions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 31, after ("office") insert (", or paid elected union office,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 28, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 33, 34 and 35; and they are coupled with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Pearson, Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
This group of amendments implements the undertakings that I gave at Report to bring forward further amendments to apply the limit for tenure of major union offices to those who are no longer students and to consider how to secure that institutions should address the principle of maintaining access to services for non-union members.
During the Committee debates, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, noted that the requirement in subsection (2) (f) which limits the tenure of sabbatical officers to two years in total was couched in terms of those who are currently students at the establishment. Consequently, graduating students elected to sabbatical office would not be subject to the tenure limit. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to this point which Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 now address. They remove the reference to the period of study and provide a parallel definition relating to paid elected office, so that the position of people who do not need leave of absence and so cannot be described as on sabbatical is unambiguous under this provision. With these amendments the requirement for a two-year limit will apply as standard and will include those who are elected having ended their period of study. This limit has in itself been recognised as appropriate by the representative bodies.
Amendment No. 30 requires each governing body to set out and to bring to the attention of all students at least annually the arrangements made to provide access to services for students who opt out of union membership. This responds to the important question of continued access raised in a probing amendment tabled at Report stage by my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox.
As I explained in response to that amendment, we cannot compel student unions to provide services to non-members, as my noble friends then suggested, because the protection for the enjoyment of property in the European Convention on Human Rights means that student unions cannot be obliged to use any of their private resources for the benefit of non-members. There is, however, nothing to prevent the student union from providing services for non-members if it agrees to do so. We need therefore to provide every incentive for such agreements to be reached at the local level. Amendment
1456
No. 30 does that by requiring institutions to set out their arrangements for providing these services for all to see and so ensuring that such agreements are considered.
This requirement will promote a clear understanding of services which institutions make available and the basis on which they are provided. In itself, this will help students to understand the implications of opting out of membership of the union, a concern raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It will also clarify the position of those part-time students who may be excluded from membership of the union under current arrangements and for whom access to services may be uncertain as a consequence. The requirement is consistent with Citizen's Charter principles that users should have clear information on availability of services.
The method of notifying students should, in the Government's view, equally be a matter for local decision. Institutions' own student charters and their prospectuses will provide convenient vehicles. No doubt institutions will want to ensure that their prospectuses, in particular, include information about student union services so that prospective students are clear where they would stand. Indeed, Amendment No, 31 by my noble friend Lord Pearson would make it a requirement to include that information in prospectuses. I have some sympathy with that idea: it is just what we would expect any sensible institution to do. But I do not think that Parliament should regulate, as my noble friend's amendment would do, what information should be included in prospectuses when there is no statutory requirement that prospectuses should be published in the first place.
Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 are consequential on the requirement to make information available. They add references to the new subsection in two places: to the definitions of all students in subsection (5); and the explanation of the meaning of "members" in relation to student representative councils in subsection (6).
Also in this group is Amendment No. 32, in which my noble friend Lord Pearson proposes that, where the students' union does not make its services available to non-members, the Secretary of State should have the power to reduce the funds available to the institution concerned by the equivalent amount. I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend has to say. I sympathise with his concern about access to services for all students.
But I should make it clear at this stage that I see some serious difficulties with this approach. There are three. First, it is not the Government's intention to change either the amount or methodology of institutional funding on account of these reforms. I gave that promise to my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
Secondly, it is not our wish to interfere with institutional autonomy or to create a new bureaucracy; to impose the constraints that this amendment would entail would be the thin end of a very significant wedge.
Thirdly, there is a moral duty. Governing bodies will continue to receive the taxpayers' money with which they now arrange for services to be provided to all students. They are taken on trust to do that now, and we are continuing to take them on trust to look after all their

1457
students in future without discrimination relating to individuals' choices about union membership. As we are not proposing to reduce the funding made available to institutions, the moral obligation is, I believe, all the stronger on institutions to be fair in their service provision to members and non-members alike.
I am sure that no one in this House would want to suggest that the choice not to belong to the union should have no consequences. We cannot guarantee that every student who opts out will have access to the same services as union members; that is part of the choice the student must take. But Amendment No. 30 will ensure that all students can see what services are available to them if they decide not to join the union. I look to the institutions to safeguard their access to services and to protect them from any victimisation which might arise from the exercise of that right.
This is the Third Reading of the Bill and at this stage it is not possible to change the wording of any amendment. With regard to the wording of my noble friend's amendment, where there is reference to prospectuses, perhaps it might be possible, via me to my colleagues in another place, to consider the possibility of publishing the information and making it available but leaving the methodology to the institutions. My noble friend's amendment is inappropriate, but perhaps he would agree that I should convey to another place the proposal that it might like to give consideration to the idea of publishing this information. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. I agree with what my noble friend said just now about my Amendment No. 31. I should have thought that a form of words along the lines of:
"the governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall publish and bring to the attention of all students, and perhaps potential students, at least once a year".
Some wording of that kind might fit the bill. I feel that the amendment as it stands at the moment only brings these matters to the attention of all students. Clearly it should include potential students and others who may be interested in how these arrangements in fact are working.
With regard to Amendment No. 32, I have to accept what my noble friend said, although I personally do not have much confidence in the hope that a moral obligation will be met by a number of student unions in this country. In that regard, once again no doubt I shall find myself in a minority of one in your Lordships' House. But such is my fear. I shall join my noble friend in watching with considerable interest exactly how that moral obligation is met.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I feel that we should put on record from these Benches that we appreciate the work that the Minister has put into this part of the Bill. We particularly appreciate the way in which she has met our concerns in Amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments and express appreciation of the way in which anxieties have been met. I fully take the point of my noble friend Lord
1458
Pearson that there is good sense behind Amendment No. 31, although the precise form of it remains to be considered.
The problem with Amendment No. 32 is that the direct intervention of the Secretary of State would set precedents which might not be welcome. I feel that it would be difficult to accept that. We take the point there. However, these are welcome amendments.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly thank the Minister once again for meeting the concerns in this part of the Bill of all those who have expressed an interest. I am also glad to hear the Minister's attitude toward the amendments, especially Amendment No. 32. I believe that to start taking away lumps of money would dramatically affect the amount of services that would be provided to the entire student body, under no matter what circumstances. There is a simple reason. For example, one cannot run half a gymnasium when there is a whole one already there.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness. She has come as near to getting this matter right as can possibly be done. It is heartbreakingly difficult to handle it in exactly the right way. It is a little as though I should announce that I had decided to opt out of the non-smoking section of your Lordships' Library. Obviously it would be unreasonable of me to go there and be a nuisance. On the other hand, I should be a little disappointed if people were not prepared to allow me to read the books which happened to be shelved there. I think that that just about makes the point. With good sense on all sides, I believe that we can handle this matter perfectly well. I thank the noble Baroness for setting us a very good example in that respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("during the time he is a student").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 13, line 39, at end insert:
("(4A) The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall bring to the attention of all students, at least once a year, details of any arrangements it has made for services which a students' union at the establishment provides for its members to be provided for students who are not members of the union.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 31, as an amendment to Amendment No. 30, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 30 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 35:
Page 13, line 40, leave out ("and (4)") and insert (", (4) and (4A)").
Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("In") to ("the") in line 6 and insert ("this section").
Page 14, line 9, leave out from ("in") to end of line and insert ("subsection (2) (c) (ii) above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Teacher Training Agency]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
At Second Reading I highlighted how much the Bill rested on fundamental principles which have inspired so many of our reforms: quality, efficiency, choice and accountability. Though the Bill contains relatively few clauses, it deals with key issues in the organisation of teacher training and in the conduct of student unions. We have debated those principles with the thoroughness and openness that the public have come to expect from this House.
Throughout our debates I have, indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted at the last stage, had to take the smooth with the rough. The smooth passage of Part II of the Bill, as amended, followed a stormy initial reception. The way in which, with the help of a number of my noble friends and other noble Lords, we have managed to build consensus confirms my view that on this matter there was very little dispute between the various sides of the House on the objectives of these reforms. There was, however, some disagreement—indeed, considerable disagreement—about the means to achieve them. The Government were persuaded by the arguments advanced by your Lordships. We have determined on a new mechanism to achieve our shared aims of choice, democracy and accountability in student union affairs.
Our debates from Committee stage on student unions have therefore concentrated on fine-tuning the package of reforms. We have agreed on a number of detailed requirements which together will secure fair, democratic and accountable conduct in our student unions. With your Lordships' support we have clarified the membership and franchise arrangements, provided for greater information and democratic control on affiliations and sought to ensure that the reforms are workable with minimum disruption and bureaucracy.
This approach builds on the best practices in our universities and colleges and seeks to bring all student unions up to the same high standards that students should be able to expect. At the same time it shifts the balance of responsibility for implementing the reforms to the institutions themselves where it properly belongs. The reforms will apply in further education just as much as in higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, stressed that point when moving an amendment in Committee. Perhaps I may say how very pleased I am that the importance of the further education sector is increasingly acknowledged in your Lordships' House.
The reforms will bring important new benefits to students in our further and higher education institutions. All students will for the first time be able to choose whether to belong to their student union and be associated with its political activities. They will also be assured that student unions, which after all depend largely on public money, operate democratically and are accountable.
I have to say that the reason we have continued to find the going less smooth on Part I of the Bill is that there are real philosophical differences of view on both
1460
sides of the Chamber. We believe that accountability and choice are just as important in this area of policy as in the context of student unions. We do not accept limitations on choice, or the confusion of accountability. We resist in particular any argument which rests on the preservation of the status quo for its own sake.
The Secretary of State's criteria, with which all initial teacher training must comply, set high standards. The encouragement we have given to new course models and new providers, in the shape of groups of schools, allow for choice and competition in achieving those standards in practice. And we want to see those arrangements backed by monitoring of, and public accountability for, the standards reached. That is why we need a teacher training agency, with its vital twin, functions of funding and accreditation. And that is why accreditation must be informed by continuing published evidence from HMI that the necessary standards are being achieved.
It is important to remember that Part I of the Bill has as its main and central purpose the bringing together of all the important functions which affect the quality of teacher training and which would benefit from a concerted approach. The Bill brings together work done currently by four bodies —the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, which advises the Secretary of State on individual courses; the Teaching as a Career Unit, which promotes teaching as a career; the Department for Education, which approves all courses of teacher training; and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which funds all higher education courses.
Noble Lords will recall that an alternative to our approach, which would have been as fractured as the current arrangements, was debated in detail at the very beginning of the Committee stage. I was heartened by the scale of your Lordships' support for the creation of the Teacher Training Agency. And while I commend any attempt to increase the professionalism of teachers, I was pleased also that our very full debate on a possible model for a general teaching council ex posed very clearly that, as proposed, such a body would have served to bolster vested interests rather than enhance professionalism.
I accept that in one respect the Bill we shall be sending forward to the other place may not meet the objective of allowing schools to play a full and equal part in teacher training. We must of course let the full parliamentary process take its course, and allow the other place to consider the desirability and workability of that aspect of the current draft. We listened carefully to the anxieties raised about particular aspects of the Bill; and where they were well-founded, we acted to amend it. We have, I hope, dispelled some myths about our intentions. And we have made some constructive changes to the Bill, in both parts. I believe that we have done our job well and I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Judd: My Lords, first I must pay tribute to all those who participated in the work on the Bill; to those noble Lords in all parts of the House who have striven to contain its worst excesses and most especially to my Front Bench colleagues. But I must pay tribute also to

1461
the officials of the House and to the many people in the world of education who lent their expertise and experience. In particular, I must place on record my personal thanks to Clare Cozens, our researcher, and the team of advisers who worked tirelessly and closely with her throughout our proceedings. I also readily pay tribute to the Minister for her fortitude and industry. If those qualities had been equalled by imagination, sensitivity and vision, it would have made a powerful combination.
I must be candid. The Bill remains a wretched enterprise with which the Minister should never have allowed herself to be associated. She certainly worked overtime to build bridges with the alienated critics behind her. And in fairness it must be acknowledged that she conceded a number of important points argued from all sides of the House. But the best that can be said is that the Bill leaves your Lordships' House for the other place in a less damaging condition than when it came here. It is still the Bill that should never have been; a Bill inexcusably introduced as fodder for Conservative Party militants at their annual seaside jamboree as distinct from a Bill to enhance the quality of education, without doubt the most precious investment in our nation's future.
The Bill remains a potentially sinister piece of legislation motivated by party tactics rather than by statesmanship. Yet another non-accountable quango is to be spawned with all the scope that gives for the crude manipulation of political patronage which has become so characteristic of the Government opposite. As we saw today, the Government have even arrogantly avoided spelling out in the Bill the precise responsibilities of the Teacher Training Agency, thereby making it still less accountable as it will be virtually impossible to monitor its activities and its effectiveness.
The story of the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House has been extraordinary. First we were all told to clear the decks to be ready for a blitzkrieg in January. But then in December came the Second Reading—a devastating occasion. There were more than 30 speeches with, at my count, barely three in full support of the Minister. The Bill then totally disappeared only at last to re-emerge in March after countless behind-the-scenes agonies and furtive consultations. A confident government, committed to providing education in the best possible way to meet the needs of all our children and our nation's future, would put a premium on constant consultation, building up a positive consensus with all those concerned—teachers, pupils, parents, governors, administrators, local authorities, industries and the professions.
What is so disastrous about the present Secretary of State is his bunker-like mentality; his failure to communicate or listen before he wildly fires his next salvo of half-baked, ill-conceived ideas causing maximum anxiety and distress and taking God knows how much time and resources to keep the ship afloat at all. When the Bill eventually re-emerged it was emasculated. Part II, dealing with student unions, had collapsed. The vitriolic prejudice of the Secretary of
1462
State had been pricked by your Lordships and shown to be the partisan populism that it was. No wonder that at the Committee stage the rejoicing was so great. However, I must confess that it was not rejoicing into which my colleagues and I could throw ourselves with any great enthusiasm, for the basic issues remain as disturbing as ever.
Why were the Government trespassing onto this territory at all? Why was the long-standing independence and trenchantly defended freedom of our higher education establishments—a precious hallmark of the quality of our democratic society —being breached, especially when the law of charity was more than adequate to meet any genuine anxieties that might exist? Once started, where would the erosion end? That remains the question that none of us can dodge. We ignore it at our peril. The danger in our national life, the sickness in our national life, is that the unthinkable increasingly takes the centre of the stage aided and abetted by our efforts to disguise it as less unacceptable than it essentially remains. We are trapped increasingly into dancing to the tune of what should never have been, and step by step our society is transformed and diminished into something more narrow, more nasty and altogether more threatening.
On Part I, despite the successful and vital amendments insisting on partnerships between schools and institutions of higher education, despite the Government's concessions on research, graduate status and, most importantly, on special needs, despite the concessions on consultation and, for example, co-operation between Ofsted and the new TTA, the fundamental question remains as so eloquently phrased by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, during our deliberations: does this Bill enhance or does it not enhance the status of the teaching profession?
Whatever the structure of our educational system, in the final analysis it is the quality of our teachers that matters most. Buildings, facilities, equipment—indeed, the curriculum and the tests—are inanimate. It is how they are used and brought to life to stimulate the young that matters most. If they are well designed, they can help. If they are badly designed, they can hinder. But it is the knowledge, the confidence, the understanding and the skills of our teachers that is the catalyst. Of course in their preparation training in technique is essential. In this respect the importance of classroom experience for student teachers cannot be over-emphasised. But to make the most of that experience, the opportunity to reflect on it, to analyse it, to learn from it, with the benefit of the resources available to higher education, is equally essential. It is not an either/or situation. Both are required.
Knowledge without technique can be intellectually musclebound or worse. It can be helpless or damaging. But technique without knowledge is like an engine without fuel. We need a graduate profession because we need to be certain of the fuel supply. Hence the importance of education as well as training for our teachers. If anything has alleviated just a little my concern, it is the belated at least partial recognition of this by the Minister today. And I thank her for that.

1463
But education as distinct from training cannot be in the subject matter alone. It must also be about the process of teaching itself. We must have teachers who understand what they are doing and its interrelationship with the whole development of the pupil as a person —not simply conveyor-belt operatives. That is why the self-perceived and externally perceived significance and status of the profession is so vital. That is why it has been so sad to witness yet again the Government rejecting the concept of a general teaching council. The positive engagement of the profession in responsibility for the provision and development of education rather than merely the application of concepts designed by others is long, long overdue if we are to do well by our children. Failure to recognise this inevitably leads to alienation, playing into the hands of manipulative extremists.
Whatever the damage limitation—it can be little else —to Part I of the Bill that we may have managed to secure, it is its entire thrust which remains so depressing. Try as the Minister may to put a brave face on it, I suspect she knows perfectly well that what she has been asked to deliver from your Lordships' House is a Bill designed to reduce the significance of higher education in the preparation of our teachers, to reduce financial demands which must be met if we are to invest effectively in the future of our children, and through them in the future of our nation; in effect, she has been asked to start a retrograde movement towards classroom instructors in place of teachers, with all the fullness that professional title should imply.
As we approach the next millennium with all the challenges it will present to the United Kingdom, we need as never before confident, well educated, inquiring, critical, resourceful young people leaving our schools; young people able to shoulder positively the huge responsibilities of citizenship in a free, democratic, excitingly multi-racial society, a society whose destiny is inextricably interwoven economically, environmentally, strategically and politically with that of the world as a whole. That will require the highest calibre of our teaching profession. There is nothing new in this Bill which begins to meet those challenges. It is, I fear, as shallow, unimaginative and ultimately dangerous as the Government who produced it. Following as it does the damaging irrelevance of last year's Education Bill, it provides still more ample evidence of the terminal political senility of the Administration opposite. It is time they went; and the sooner the better.
7.34 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the middle of March I was approached by a postgraduate law student from the Netherlands who was working on the extent of this House's powers as a revising Chamber. I told her to come to the House for the third day of Committee on this Bill and I told her to listen with particular care to the speeches from the Government Back Benches. In all the time that I have been in the House, which is not yet that long, I cannot remember any occasion which would have been a more suitable one for her to hear with that
1464
question in mind. This is a proud day in the annals of the House because the House as a whole has made a really remarkable contribution to the improvement of the Bill.
I have paid tribute to the noble Baroness on a number of occasions already. I mean those tributes, but since the hour is late and since the noble Baroness tends to lose patience with repetition, I hope that she will take them as read if I do not go on. She had a really distinguished Bill but such successes go to the House as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has always said when talking about the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which is another of the heroes of this occasion, such successes are only possible when the House works on an all-party basis. The Government Back Benches, including a number of people who would, I think, prefer not to be named, so I will not do so, have contributed with great distinction to this. I am deeply grateful to them.
When that happens it is essential that those who speak from the Opposition side of the House, come a long way to meet them. The gravity of the occasion, however seriously we may take it, is nothing like the gravity of the occasion when Leo Amery called out to Arthur Greenwood, "Speak for England". But the spirit of the injunction that is needed has something in common. I have tried to hear that injunction. Whether or how far I have succeeded is for others to say.
Part II of the Bill has been improved beyond all recognition. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it now represents best practice in the universities. That is also the view of the leadership of the NUS. They, university staff and all parties may attempt with a really good will to implement that and to make it work. I hope it will do a great deal of good.
The concession we have had on research today is of almost equal significance. It prevents the dismemberment of research in universities. That is something of great importance for which we are truly thankful. But when we get to Part I of the Bill, this agreement does at least diminish. The key point of the debate in Committee was the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. She drew attention to the decline in standards of literacy. We agree that that is a fact. There is no point in disputing it. It certainly concurs with my own experience. Noble Lords on the Government Benches have then gone on to assume that that is the fault of British teachers. So far as I can see, that is only an assumption. It may be in part true—none of us is without fault—but it is at least an assumption that deserves a good deal more testing than it has had so far.
I happen to think that this is a worldwide phenomenon with causes a good deal wider than any we can find in the British education system. I think in fact it is the result of the onset of television and therefore the change from a verbal to a visual culture. Twenty years ago my head of department said to me, "If you have any books to write you had better write them quickly. It is an obsolescent art form". Fortunately, so far he seems to have exaggerated, but I understand perfectly well the point that he was making. That is something too big to be blamed on British teachers.
If there is doubt whether British teachers are to blame for the decline of British literacy, there is also at least

1465
room for doubt whether Part I of the Bill will do anything to raise the standard of British teachers. I have heard what the noble Baroness said about quality, accountability and choice. What I cannot see is any way in which the teacher training agency may do anything to improve those very desirable qualities. It is simply beyond my comprehension why the Government believe that these things will be improved by this agency.
When we discussed it in Committee, I relied on the remark of the Prime Minister in his interview of 17th February in the Daily Express when he said that it was to take influence away from fashionable theory. That worried me. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness's reply to that which I found, in a large measure, reassuring. But my difficulty is this: if that is not the agenda, what is? I understand perfectly well why the noble Baroness does not like us looking at hidden agendas; but there is nothing that tempts us more to look for a hidden agenda than the entire absence of any visible agenda. Since I cannot find a visible agenda and since the change will necessarily cause a good deal of upheaval, I cannot help wondering whether this is really a case for Burke's maxim that where it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may offer the briefest of words from these Benches. In the great succession of Education Bills which this House has considered over the past few years, this is the first one to have considered directly the education and significance of teachers. In many respects, I regret that we did not have a Bill on teacher education before we had some of the recent Bills which we have considered. My own conviction is that we shall not do much to improve further the quality of education until we recognise that at the end of the day we are in the hands of the teachers.
Although there are some bad teachers, just as there are bad clergymen and bad politicians, for the most part the teachers have done a creative and thorough job in circumstances where they often feel that there has been a change in the educational system every weekend. It seems to me that the merit of this Bill is that it brings together under one body all the principal responsibilities for teacher education, although I fear that in the process of trying to introduce that coherence, we may inadvertently have introduced some new fragmentation.
I should like to place on record my admiration for the way in which the noble Baroness the Minister has not only shown her mastery of the subject and of the Bill, but has matched her skill at arguing robustly with a readiness to listen carefully. Even though Homer nodded, the noble Baroness has never once been caught out. Although there was a long pause between Second Reading and Committee stage, from that stage to Third Reading we have moved very rapidly. The noble Baroness has gone out of her way to keep us informed by correspondence of the work which she has been doing between stages. All of that has been most helpful. Although I cannot say that the Bill is all that I would wish, I have no hesitation in expressing my admiration
1466
for and gratitude to the noble Baroness for the work which she has done as regards the whole Bill. I hope that she will be able to secure in the future that continuing partnership between Church and state to which allusion was made earlier in the day.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, at an early stage I felt uncomfortable with one or two aspects of this Bill. The way in which most of those aspects—perhaps all of them—have been dealt with says a great deal to the effectiveness of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. That is a point already well made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There have been two particular factors on this occasion that have made this so. The first is the care which has been taken on all sides of the House to debate the majority of the amendments thoroughly, constructively and thoughtfully. I would particularly like to commend the very warm way in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has responded to some of the constructive amendments set down by my noble friend Lady Blatch. It is the most effective way of proceeding to be very severe indeed when there is something to quarrel with but once the quarrel is over, then to announce the fact and express satisfaction.
When the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has been in his constructive rather than his polemical mode, matters have moved constructively. I was not expecting to say this but I have to as regards the speech which he just made. I felt that he was often less than generous. I felt that he was addressing a gallery which was not visible to me, but which was clearly very visible to him. I felt that he was saying things which he had to say in a manner which, fortunately, he did not employ throughout the debate. Of course it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, so I would not presume to criticise. I merely observe that I felt that there were moments when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, must be a difficult man to please.
Part II of the Bill in particular has been amended to the general satisfaction, I believe, of the House. But he did not go out of his way to point out that it had been amended to the satisfaction of, as I understand it, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and of the National Union of Students, which is one of the cases where a great many people have been pleased. I have to point out that the Opposition did not table any substantive amendments to Part II of the Bill at Report stage or at Third Reading. I make no criticism there. I infer from that that they were broadly satisfied already at Report stage and at Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, might have said so on that point. I felt that the speech which he has just made did not enhance the constructive atmosphere with which he discussed most of the Bill throughout its course. So the first factor has been the care taken on all sides.
Noble friends on this side of the House have been influential. The important amendments laid down by my noble friends Lady Perry and Lord Skidelsky along with the noble Earl, were of significance. Another factor has been the great skill, thoughtfulness and constructive approach of my noble friend the Minister. We owe a great deal to her. I made a rather severe speech at

1467
Second Reading. I was enormously heartened and a little surprised by the constructive response to the concept which has underlain her approach that a Bill can be improved at an early stage, as indeed it has been. So I believe that both sides of the House have worked together to make this a better Bill with the aid of the Minister. The fact that it is a better Bill speaks volumes to the hard work and skill with which my noble friend the Minister has approached it. We are very grateful to her.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, at this late hour I would not wish to delay the House very long except to say that I believe we have every justification for celebrating for a few moments the passing of this Bill from our House. Probably there is no more important stage of any young person's life than the three or four years that they spend in higher education and the experience for the brightest and best of any generation of their undergraduate courses during which they learn about managing their own affairs and democracy. Very often their ideas and values for adult life are very much set during those years.
Therefore what we were dealing with in Part II of this Bill was no light matter. It is extremely important that we got it right and I believe that we did. I wish to add my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she was so determined to get that part of the Bill right, recognising its importance. We are very fortunate indeed to have had this particular Minister in this particular place and at this particular time.
On Part I, which deals with teacher training agency, I agree entirely with those noble Lords who have said that the quality of the teachers in our schools is the single most important factor determining the quality of education. It is enormously to be welcomed that we now have one body with the responsibility of promoting teaching as a career and which is able to bring to bear quality judgments and the process of accreditation of courses and institutions on to funding decisions which it makes. We can but hope that that potentially tremendously powerful agency will have a real bearing on the quality of teachers and teaching, although the timescale of such change is very long and it will possibly take a very long time for the change in the initial training of teachers to begin to bear on the quality of education in our schools.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said, the Education Bill has seen the House at its best. I have most particularly welcomed the Cross-Bench contributions as well as those from noble Lords on both sides of the House who have worked together. One of the great strengths of this House is when we do not play politics but show a genuine concern for the great issues such as education. I am glad and pleased to have taken part in these debates.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful for all the generous comments that have been made. This debate, the last before the Bill passes to the other place, has maintained the standards of our earlier debates, both for insight and courtesy.
1468
Before we take our temporary leave of the Bill, I should like to thank my noble friends and the many noble Lords who have contributed to our debates since last December when we debated the Second Reading. More than 50 noble Lords have taken a close interest in the Bill. I cannot thank all of them in person, but I believe that the Bill has benefited from their careful and constructive scrutiny, often buttressed by many years of personal and professional experience of the matters we have been discussing.
For my own part, I have been fortunate in the sterling support I have had from my noble friend Lord St. Davids and our colleagues in the Whips' Office. They have worked tirelessly to ensure the Bill's smooth progress through this House.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who has contributed to our debates with his characteristic energy and flair. The noble Lord would riot have expected me to endorse everything that he had to say, especially the rather colourful account of the Bill that he has just given. But he must agree that there has been a measure of meeting of minds, and for that we should be grateful. I am also grateful for the constructive spirit in which the noble Lord has approached cur debates. He has been ably supported by his Front Bench colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both for his determined probing—sometimes into the very corners of the Bill—and for his much-appreciated wit. He has also been ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I continue to be embarrassed by his effusive and almost poetic flattering comments to me during the passage of the Bill. I count that as the smooth which, with some relief to me, tempered the rough which I experienced in great measure.
I am grateful to all of those who have contributed to the valuable consideration of student union reform. My noble friends Lady Young, Lord Renfrew, Lady Perry and Lord Campbell of Alloway were among those whose contributions were vital in helping to shape the reforms. I also thank those other noble Lords who raised important points in debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who respectively represented so ably the interests of further education colleges and the very important Open University. I thank also my noble friend Lord Beloff for his witty but down-to-earth examination of the implications of the reforms.
On the teacher training side, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made important points about teachers being equipped to promote pupils' spiritual, moral and other development, and to prepare them for the demands of adult life. All this is properly now reflected in Clause 1.
A number of noble Lords raised important points about the composition of the new agency. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford made strong representations on behalf of denominational institutions, and we amended the Bill accordingly. The right reverend Prelate also made points about consultation with the Churches, to which we were sympathetic,

1469
provided that we could keep to a non-statutory basis for reasons that I explained. My only doubt is whether I might have done more at the Committee stage to reassure him how much we value his advice and advice from the Churches—recent experience notwithstanding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, highlighted the importance of provision for people with special educational needs, as did my noble friend Lord Radnor; and we were able to reflect that, not least through the membership provisions for the agency.
My noble friends Lady Carnegy, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Beloff homed in on what should be the research powers of the agency, and we have today arrived at the resolution of that issue. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lady Perry for the close interest she has taken and the wealth of experience she has brought to bear on our debates. That is especially evident in her very helpful amendment, clarifying that eligibility for school-centred training courses will be limited to postgraduates. Her constructive interventions have added weight to our proceedings throughout the course of the Bill.
I thank my noble friends Lady Young, Lord Renfrew and Lord Pearson for their detailed and positive contributions on a host of subjects within the Bill. I am especially glad that we were able to meet the points of my noble friend Lord Pearson about the teaching experience of those being considered for membership of the agency, and about the need for students to receive good information about their teacher training courses. On the student union reforms, I was also grateful to my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for focusing attention on the question of access to support services for all students, which we debated earlier today.
I thank most warmly my noble friend Lord Elton for his numerous contributions, bringing long and broad experience to bear in many of our debates. We have also managed to reflect his particular anxieties about the agency's information and advice-giving powers.
I must also thank other noble Lords who brought their wealth of experience to our discussions. My noble friend Lady Cox has given us the benefit of her practical experience of leadership in higher education as Chancellor of Bournemouth University; while the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has reminded the House of industry's needs and priorities and of the importance of taking due account of those in our teacher training reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, added to our debates with his expertise in equal opportunities issues.
I also thank Parliamentary Counsel for his incredible patience, my Private Office and my officials for all of the hard work behind the scenes which is reflected in the amended Bill which is now before the House.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Renfrew have said, the whole House has subjected the Bill to thorough scrutiny. But the main principles behind the Bill which I described at Second Reading have not changed: securing higher quality and more effective use of resources in teacher training, and more choice and democratic accountability in student unions. I am confident that these principles will be supported in the other place. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Inter-Governmental Pillars of the European Union: ECC Report
7.57 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the House of Lords Scrutiny of the Inter-Governmental Pillars of the European Union (28th Report, HL Paper 124).
The noble Lord said: Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It is—rather remarkably—nearly 20 years since the House first appointed the European Communities Committee and since that committee first made reports to the House on Commission proposals raising important questions of policy or principle. Perhaps I may say that it is a pleasure to see here this evening a number of Members of the House who have made such distinguished contributions to the work of the committee in recent times, such as my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I think that there would have been more, but for the somewhat advanced hour.
Over the years, of course, the development of the Community —the Single European Act, for example —has led the committee to adapt its methods of work. We took the view in the committee some 12 months ago that potentially ratification of the Maastricht Treaty would involve particularly profound implications for parliamentary scrutiny. Whereas Community legislation (in the form of familiar regulations, directives and so on) would continue under the first pillar—and let me say that at this late hour I will not pursue the rather mystifying architectural analogy of the pillars—the second and third pillars, (concerned respectively with the common foreign and security policy and with co-operation on justice and home affairs), would cover areas which were legally outside Community competence. They would not produce Community law under the familiar legislative procedures. But they would lead to important treaties and agreements—sometimes, though not always, requiring national legislation before implementation and often placing significant constraints on the United Kingdom's right of individual action.
It is true that a declaration was attached to the Maastricht Treaty emphasising the role of national parliaments in the affairs of the Union—for which our own Government were largely responsible. Even so, we were conscious that there was, in fact, no machinery by which Parliament could make its views known to the executive before those treaties and agreements were agreed. And since the procedures leading to their agreement would be inter-governmental, they were bound to be very largely confidential, and conducted behind closed doors.
With those considerations in mind, the committee decided to hold an inquiry into the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the pillars. I take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their contributions and also those who gave such good

1471
evidence to us, notably the Home Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The report is the result of our endeavours. I want, too, to thank most warmly our legal adviser, Mrs. Eileen Denza, for her immense help on the inquiry and in preparing this report, and to thank our Clerk, Mr. Michael Pownall, for all his help, and other members of the committee's staff. We are indeed fortunate in the quality of the staff of the House.
The report sets out a good deal of explanatory information which I hope will be of interest and help to the House. Part 3. for example, describes the relevant titles, Titles V and VI, of the treaty while Part 4 gives the views of witnesses on the pillars and on the need for scrutiny. At this hour I shall do no more than sketch out our conclusions and say a word or two about the Government's response to the report.
Our principal recommendation—set out in paragraph 48—is that it is absolutely essential that work under the pillars should be scrutinised by national parliaments. After all, the European Parliament's powers concerning the pillars are distinctly limited, and we see national parliaments as being the central players in this respect. We felt too, that the key to effective scrutiny was to obtain the right documents—that is to say, draft texts and conventions—at the right time—that is to say, before they have been finalised at international level, so giving this House the opportunity to make a constructive input. As in the past, however, we would wish to be selective in our scrutiny—we are rarely short of work or short of paper anyway—and we accordingly set out three criteria to determine whether a document should be provided to Parliament. Those criteria are: its general significance; the eventual need for UK legislation; and the imposition of legal commitments on the UK. We were pleased that in connection with those, our central recommendations, the Government have on the whole responded positively.
The Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, has agreed to provide us with documents more or less in line with our criteria, and I should like to acknowledge the forthcoming way in which he has approached this whole matter—not least in volunteering to provide material before being pressed to do so. Indeed, the first three pillar documents are with us already and have been referred to sub-committees for scrutiny. I hope that the House will not regard that as pre-empting the outcome of this debate.
I have to say, however, that so far as concerns foreign and security policy documents, the Government have emphasised the significant differences between the work of the two pillars and have suggested that very few draft foreign and security policy texts will, in fact, be laid before us. We were a little disappointed by that. After all, as we say, we would not wish to monitor the details of confidential diplomatic negotiations, and we recognised that the need for secrecy would often restrict what could in practice be disclosed. I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, to confirm that there will be circumstances when draft texts arising from the common foreign and security policy will be deposited, and perhaps say a word about what those circumstances might be.
1472
At the same time, I welcome the Government's offer to brief the committee through hearings and evidence sessions. And I was much encouraged by the wish of the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, to have what he suggested should be a "continuous dialogue" with Parliament. The noble Baroness has already been most helpful in her contacts with the committee, and I have no doubt that we should make such sessions a regular part of our scrutiny procedures.
A brief word, my Lords, about our other recommendations. We took the view that whenever possible our scrutiny of pillar documents should take place in public using our normal procedures for receiving evidence and questioning Ministers.
We were in favour of national parliaments and the European Parliament consulting together and exchanging information (and perhaps even documents) arising from work under the inter-governmental pillars. It is, I suggest, undeniable that we all have the same duty of holding governments to account.
We hoped, too, that the Government would agree to extend to pillar proposals the existing parliamentary scrutiny reserve whereby they undertake not to agree to a proposal until parliamentary scrutiny has been completed, except of course, when special circumstances make that impracticable. The Government have, in effect, rejected that recommendation; and perhaps the noble Baroness could say a word about that. My own view is that the scrutiny reserve works extremely well, very rarely holds up agreement in the Council, and cannot see that the speed of events under the home and justice pillar would prevent a reserve from operating successfully. Perhaps the Government will at least keep an open mind about this and agree to review it in the light of experience. As I shall explain in a moment, we shall be reviewing our procedures again soon; so there is a strong case for reflecting further upon this, and not closing the door. Indeed, the Home Secretary told us that he was,
"not ready to accept that the Committee should have a formal scrutiny reserve",
which plainly implies that he might be ready later.
Finally, we hope that the Government will in due course, agree detailed arrangements for the provision of pillar documents to Parliament, although I recognise that that may need to await further consideration and discussion in another place. For our part—as indicated in the report —we much value current co-operation between the two Houses over European scrutiny and it is important, too, that we should avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
Increased scrutiny will inevitably have consequences for our own sub-committee structure and we shall need to give this further consideration later in the year, in accordance with our commitment to do so. Noble Lords will have noticed, too, that we have put forward a possible amendment to our terms of reference. That is also something which your Lordships may feel does riot call for immediate decision but could be considered later as well. Perhaps I should also note that there have been some suggestions (though not by the committee

1473
itself) that the committee's name should be changed. Those are all notoriously difficult matters upon which I do not intend to detain your Lordships now.
The proposals that we are considering this evening are another example of ways in which your Lordships' House is constantly seeking to develop its procedures and to keep them up-to-date; and they mark, I hope, yet one more instance of the ways in which the House makes a unique, and, one hopes, a significant contribution to the work of our parliament. If this additional step to provide greater vigilance helps to protect the interests of people generally —for that is our prime purpose, after all—it will serve further to enhance and justify the role of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the House of Lords Scrutiny of the Inter-Governmental Pillars of the European Union (28th Report, HL Paper 124)—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the report before your Lordships' House contains a mine of useful information and elucidation relating to the provisions of Titles V and VI of the Maastricht Treaty. I join the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, in thanking most warmly the legal adviser, Mrs. Denza, for her valuable work in preparing the report. I also thank the clerk, Mr. Michael Pownall. Gratitude is owed not least to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. He was most skilful in eliciting valuable comments and information from witnesses and tonight has given a valuable introduction of the report to your Lordships.
It is not necessary to emphasise to this House the great significance of these two titles dealing with CFSP (common foreign and security policy) and home and justice affairs in relation to sovereignty. Under international law, the two major attributes of a sovereign state are its independent right to conclude treaties with other states and its inherent right to decide and control who enters its territory other than its own citizens. Consequently the two titles touch closely on those two aspects of sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Hence, it is evident that there is a clear need for parliamentary scrutiny.
However, the House could welcome some of the aspects of the treaty. Of course, it is clear that the treaty contains many aspects which are unacceptable to a lot of people; certainly, all of it is unacceptable to some people. What was being carried on in the areas of foreign policy and home affairs and justice under, for instance, the European political co-operation in the first instance and the Trevi group and a multiplicity of working groups in the second has at last to some extent had its shroud of secrecy removed. Again to some extent, it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that that must be welcomed by all sides of the House.
Secondly, the Home Secretary and his predecessor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary were
1474
most willing to give helpful evidence to the Select Committee and to explain as far as possible the areas in which they are able to co-operate fully. Their recognition of their accountability to Parliament under these two new pillars is also to be welcomed.
Thirdly, the implementation of policies under home and justice affairs must be in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision firmly exists and links membership of the European Union to the necessity for all applicants to have ratified that convention. Presumably before joining the European Union applicants must become members of the Council of Europe, which is a threshold to entry to the Union. Consequently, they must accept the obligation upon applying member states to implement the provisions of the convention in their internal affairs. Failure to comply would render them obliged to go before the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
Many issues were raised during the taking of evidence and have been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. I wish to make one or two comments not on points of priority or importance but on points that I want to bring to your Lordships' attention. It was pointed out that under the CFSP new commitments imposed on member states by adoption of common positions and joint actions would be binding in international law—not EC law—and would not be subject to national ratification or approval procedures. Articles J.7 and K.6, which relate to home and justice affairs, make provision for a duty to consult and to inform the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP. The Select Committee would rightly expect to be consulted and informed by our own Government at least to the extent that the United Kingdom is concerned. It would be wrong for the European Parliament to be consulted and informed to an extent that would not apply to our own national Parliament or any other.
In answer to Question No. 112 on page 141 of the report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary stated that a convention existed whereby he was summoned in advance of every European summit to appear before the Select Committee of another place. It might be appropriate if a similar arrangement could be made either by requesting my noble friend Lady Chalker to come to the Select Committee on such occasions or, after agreement between the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the relevant authorities, by calling a joint meeting of the two Select Committees of both Houses, either fully or with representatives of each. In view of the pressures on Ministers, it would be unreasonable to expect the Foreign Secretary to come to both Houses. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Boston, emphasised the need not to duplicate where that is unnecessary. Nevertheless, if this is the most convenient way, this House is justly entitled to have a briefing from the Foreign Secretary or from my noble friend Lady Chalker before each European summit. I hope that my noble friend will reply to that point.
It is appreciated that speed and confidentiality are entailed in negotiating foreign policy. However, several areas of foreign policy could be made open to scrutiny

1475
before final decisions are taken. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, emphasised, as do I, that, as regards the Government deciding when disclosure is appropriate, timing is of the essence. As the noble Lord so rightly said on page 41, Question No. 123:
"Our main aim as a committee has always been to seek to influence rather than to bind".
That is the spirit in which, under his chairmanship, the committee will continue to act.
While accepting that under CFSP it is in many situations necessary for the 12 member states to stick together—the Foreign Secretary gave the example of the former Yugoslavia — it must also be accepted that it is sometimes necessary not to take action. Sometimes that is just as important as recognising that it is necessary to take action. After all, we might recognise that it was the growth of a need for a foreign policy system that saw the improvement and development under European Political Co-operation from the early 1970s, when it was recognised world-wide that the economic strength of the Community was great but that there was no equal balance in political and foreign relations policy. The economic strength of the EC was not reflected. That is why this new aspect of the treaty is so important for both the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole.
This approach also reflects the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I hope that I have understood him correctly. He recognised the importance of openness and scrutiny, which could provide parliamentary and political support for Government policy. That aspect has been greatly neglected because the Government have taken a position behind a shroud of secrecy and there has been no preparation of Parliament or any part of it in discussing and reviewing the proposals. The element of surprise would be removed, which could be of great help to the Government.
I wish to refer to the committees of the European Parliament. They too have undertaken positive work in preparing ways of dealing with the presidency of the European Union, obtaining information and being consulted on these aspects of policy, whether foreign or home and justice. We must recognise, perhaps with regret, that the European Parliament has exercised with some effect its powers in relation to international agreements. As far as can be ascertained—and we have some great historians on our Benches—the United Kingdom Parliament has never prevented ratification of an international agreement once an agreement has been signed under the Crown's prerogative. But under provisions introduced in the Single European Act, on at least three occasions, the European Parliament has opposed on human rights grounds and possibly prevented, at least for a time, ratification of separate protocols with Turkey, with Syria and with Israel. So far, the British Parliament has never done that, although in theory it would be possible for it to do so. That emphasises the need for close co-operation with the Government and either the Select Committee or whichever vehicle i s chosen for that consultation.
It must be recognised that Parliament needs to be consulted on issues which may appear to be in the European interest but may not always be in the interests
1476
of the United Kingdom. Decisions have to be unanimous, at least for the time being, although the proposals might appear to some European states to be unwise. It is not necessarily that such actions are not in our interests; it may be that they are merely unwise. I can think of one or two recent examples of that; for example, in my view, the recognition of Croatia, which emanated from European Political Co-operation. Parliamentary processes which give a signal to other member states of the government's position may be welcomed. That situation arises in regard not only to the United Kingdom but also to other governments which might object to certain lines being taken.
I turn to scrutiny matters under Title VI, which raise different issues, mainly because the end product of the decision-making process may well include the adoption of conventions which would involve changes in domestic law. Those have an increasing effect on the rights of individuals. I do not consider that it would be appropriate for such conventions to appear suddenly out of the blue without a prior opportunity to discuss the texts. I suggest an arrangement whereby a Select Committee—whether or not in confidence—could consider a draft text before it is negotiated. At that stage one can foresee what may develop and there will not necessarily be any interference with the negotiating powers of the Government. It is extremely important that draft texts should be considered before the: decision-making process is completed.
Many political and legal issues are raised in the report, not least the need for national parliaments, perhaps in co-operation with the European Parliament, to ensure that the measures adopted, mainly under Title VI, are implemented and applied throughout the member states. We must remember that Article 155, which endows the Commission, as guardian of the treaties with the powers to ensure that measures that are adopted are implemented, does not apply to Titles V and VI. Therefore, it is extremely important to work out a system, perhaps through the various committees which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, attends on behalf of this Parliament, to ensure that the right processes are set in place in order that co-operation is available.
It is hoped that this House can look forward to flexible co-operation both with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and with my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey, who speaks on behalf of the Foreign Secretary in this House, so that. Parliament can be informed without hindering or weakening the United Kingdom's position in the various fora of the European union.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this lucid, vigorous and enlightened report is as important for the citizens of this country and of the European Union as any to have been made to this House. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, to his committee and to the staff for their opinions and recommendations. They consider a crucial question for our times: how can Parliament really influence what Ministers do ever more actively on the international plane, notably within the European Union, especially

1477
where what Ministers do may affect the rights and duties of the individual? The report provides practical, workable means of making Ministers more open and accountable to Parliament.
Even before the creation of the European Union, and the greatly increased scope for concerted inter-governmental action, the relevant principles of British constitutional law and government practice did not ensure proper and sufficient accountability to an increasingly marginalised Parliament and to the rule of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has so clearly explained, with the building of the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union in Maastricht the problems of effective accountability will become still greater unless national legislatures can enhance their scrutiny and supervision.
With the permission of your Lordships, I should like to give a few examples in the international human rights field of the conduct of successive governments to show the pressing need to heed the moderate and proportionate recommendations in the committee's report in the face of what I can only describe as the Government's narrow and unenthusiastic response. These examples illustrate the need to make the Government's activities under the CFSP pillar as accountable to Parliament as under the justice and home affairs pillar, in accordance with the committee's three criteria, and by laying draft rather than final texts before Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, rightly referred to the relevance and importance of the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall take that as one of my main examples. After the Attlee Government had signed that convention in November 1950, it was formally laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, but in breach of the so-called Ponsonby rule, and despite the convention's great importance, the Government did not submit the convention to Parliament for discussion. The same was true when the first Wilson Government took the momentous step, in December 1965, of accepting the right of individuals to complain to the European Commission of Human Rights of breaches of the European convention by the Executive, the courts or Parliament itself. Parliament was not consulted at all and did not discuss the implications of ratification or of acceptance of the right of individual petition.
Those implications are of obvious importance to individuals and to public authorities alike. Increasingly, our own courts, understandably restive at having their decisions reviewed by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, without being empowered by Parliament to give direct effect to the convention in this country, use the convention to interpret ambiguous legislation and to develop the common law. This is a most welcome approach by our senior enlightened judges because it reduces avoidable inconsistencies between our law and European convention law. But it means that UK ratification of the convention and acceptance of the right of individual petition are more and more affecting existing law and private rights without parliamentary authority; that is, without incorporation of the convention. That position is
1478
contrary to well-established British constitutional principles because Parliament is being bypassed by the Government and the courts, but there is no sign that the Government intend to seek a legislative mandate for the use of the convention by our courts.
There is also a lamentable absence of parliamentary debate or scrutiny about the Government's periodic reports to the various international monitoring bodies under the international human rights treaties to which the United Kingdom is party; for example, bodies such as the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
These periodic reports by the Government affect our rights and duties, for through them the Government seek to persuade the international bodies that the public authorities of the UK are fully complying with the international obligations imposed by the human rights treaties—and so to shield the Government from the need to introduce legislative or administrative measures to give better domestic effect to those obligations.
When they make these reports, the Government inform the international agencies of such matters as Parliament's likely attitude towards the incorporation of the European convention or the international convenant into our law; but they do not seek the views of Parliament, whether before or afterwards.
The periodic reports are argumentative as well as factual. They tend to give only half of the picture—the half that reflects the Government's policy and British law and practice in a favourable light. In the knowing words of Mr. William Waldegrave, the "Minister for Open Government", to the inquiry of Lord Justice Scott:
"Much of government policy is much more like playing poker than playing chess. You don't put all your cards up at one time".
That is certainly true of the poker-faced government reports to the international human rights agencies.
But my point is not that the Government are playing poker in dealing cards to these international agencies but that they do not put their cards up at all for Parliament, and that Parliament has no proper opportunity to participate as a significant player in the international dialogue, which is dominated by the Home Office and the other home departments. The Government do not show drafts of these reports to the relevant specialist statutory bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the two Equal Opportunities Commissions. Apart from their recent first report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Government's reports are not published by HMSO; nor in the past have they or the international bodies' responses to them even been routinely placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Moreover, they are never submitted in draft or final form for parliamentary consideration.
Perhaps I may take another example. For the past nine years, the Government have been participating in discussions within the Council of Europe about the reform of the dilatory and inefficient enforcement procedures of the European Convention on Human Rights. For years the Government opposed the creation

1479
of a single permanent European Court of Human Rights in place of the present two-tier Commission and Court. When they became isolated, the Government reluctantly agreed, last year, to work on a reforming protocol to the convention. Now, alone among the 32 European Governments—except for Turkey—the Government threaten to block the reform process because of the Home Secretary's objection to creating an automatic right of individual access to the European Court.
The Government must decide whether to sign the Eleventh Protocol at the meeting of the Committee of Ministers next month. The outcome of that decision will be of very great practical importance to everyone in this country and to the European reform process as a whole. Yet at no time have the Government ever consulted Parliament about the issues that I mentioned or, still less, sought a negotiating mandate; nor will they do so before signing and ratifying or refusing to sign and ratify the Eleventh Protocol. So much, if I may say so, for a commitment to real and effective accountability to Parliament.
I suggest that those examples show that the Foreign Secretary was much too complacent when he told the European Communities Committee that existing arrangements for influencing and controlling the way in which Ministers conduct foreign policy are "about right". They may be about right for Ministers and their advisers, but they are far from adequate in terms of parliamentary accountability. Unless they are strengthened in the manner recommended by the European Communities Committee, these loose procedures will continue to cede far too much power to our Government and to the other governments of the European Union to act in our name without real parliamentary scrutiny and supervision, just as they now do when the Government negotiate within the Council of Europe and beyond.
The Committee is surely right in asserting that work under the inter-governmental pillars must be supervised by national Parliaments; that the committee intend to be vigilant in holding Ministers to account in these areas; and that the key to effective supervision is to obtain the right documents, and to obtain them in time to influence the outcome. That means, as the committee indicates, that it is essential to see the texts in draft. The committee is also surely right in calling for documents to be provided for Parliament not only where there will eventually be a need for primary legislation but also where they are significant —particularly where the rights or duties of individuals are affected—and where they might require secondary legislation or the imposition of legally-binding commitments on the UK. Further, the committee is surely right to recommend that national Parliaments and the European Parliament should consult and exchange information. Greater inter-governmental co-operation must also be matched by greater inter-parliamentary co-operation—an important subject not, I am afraid, mentioned in the Government's response.
Despite the narrow and largely negative response by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and to a lesser extent by the Home Secretary, I very much hope that the committee's recommendations will be implemented in their entirety. They are measured,
1480
appropriate and necessary measures to tackle the democratic deficit in this country and elsewhere within the European Union. The time is ripe—over-ripe—for much needed reforms to ensure that, except for good reasons in exceptional cases, government will consult with Parliament, and when government do consult Parliament they will do so with the cards face upwards on the table. Unless and until that happens, we have a duty to be sceptical about the Government's commitment to effective accountability to Parliament for decisions taken under the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union or, indeed, elsewhere in concert with other governments.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I was a co-opted member of the Select Committee when it prepared its report.I speak to support the conclusions and recommendations that the committee made as outlined by our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. My comments relate mainly to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP); that is, Title V of the Maastricht Treaty.
There are two aspects to the subject: the procedure to be followed, and the substance to be discussed. My suggestion is that we need, first, to look at the issues to be discussed, examining briefly the kind of topics that are likely to arise before forming a judgment about the best procedure to put in place.
The common starting point is that we have had the benefit of an excellent procedure in past years for dealing with proposals emerging from the Commission. Of course, that will remain in place for the same type of business in future. What we have to do now is to build upon that past success so as to create an equally effective method of scrutiny for the new matters to be discussed under the two inter-governmental pillars. It is indispensable that we do so with the agreement of the Government and of all sides of the House. It is an important debate. I hope that we may emerge from it with a common understanding of what is required.
The memorandum provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that the CFSP will evolve from the existing work on European political co-operation. While I agree that evolution is a helpful way of looking at the new CFSP, I note that there is some difference between the views of the Select Committee and those of the Government about the category of documents on Title V work which we would like to see. Members of the Committee had hoped that the three tests which are mentioned and spelt out in paragraph 53 of the report would apply to both pillars, but the Government evidently do not believe that that would be appropriate as a general rule. As I believe there may be some misunderstanding here, it is worth looking at that point in rather more detail.
Up to the present the large majority of texts emerging from political co-operation have not required scrutiny either because they related to current international business often of an urgent or transitory character, or because there was often no time, and perhaps sometimes little need, for the Government to inform the House of discussion between member states about, for example, the exact wording of an imminent Security Council

1481
resolution. The same could be said of many other declarations made by the Community in the past, for example expressing moral solidarity with groups whose human rights are being threatened, as they are today in Rwanda, or urging states involved in conflict to settle their dispute by peaceful means.
I do not think that Members of the Select Committee were looking for procedures to scrutinise activities of this kind. They would not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 53. If, exceptionally, they were significant, no doubt means could be found to cover them, although I would not expect this to occur in the ordinary course. I think that we have adequate means of asking questions and arranging debates about business of this sort. I believe, however, that Members of the Committee were looking ahead to other types of activity which we suppose may engage the European Union in the future. To illustrate this I wish to refer to three areas of foreign policy where the European Union could have a significant role and where a form of scrutiny in Parliament would seem to me to be appropriate.
First—this is becoming a current political issue—there is the problem of security in Eastern Europe. There are now six states in that region without any adequate form of collective security since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Some of these states are to take part in a loose, non-binding relationship with NATO. It is not clear at present whether this will meet their needs or indeed ours. The European Union, or its arm the Western European Union, could seek to play a more direct role in this area, or become obliged to do so. The French Prime Minister made an interesting suggestion last year that a new security treaty might be negotiated between the states of both East and West Europe and I can see the attractions of that. I suggest that this whole subject may become more active and when it does, and preferably before that happens, it would be appropriate for the Government to inform Parliament of their intentions in good time rather than to wait until a treaty is worked out and ready for ratification. I had this in mind when I suggested at one of the meetings of the Select Committee—in the words that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, used just now—that scrutiny could provide a means of securing a degree of understanding of government policy and political support for it.
A second issue which may well involve us in future years concerns the policy of the Union in the Mediterranean. Members of the Union in Southern Europe feel the need for such a policy as they have close political and economic ties with the states of North Africa whose citizens have emigrated in large numbers to France and Italy in particular. We ourselves have policies of a pragmatic nature with each of the North African nations individually, but we do not now, I think, have a Mediterranean policy as such. Historically we have had in the past such a broad policy when we were worried about Russian expansion in the area at the expense of the Ottoman Empire, when we needed sea routes to India and when the southern flank of the Soviet empire needed to be contained. A European Mediterranean policy now would involve considerable
1482
expense and costly trade concessions although it could also provide member states with some important benefits. If a negotiation of this kind is likely—I think it may occur before very long—it would be wise for Parliament to be informed and for its opinion to be sought before new and permanent obligations were entered into.
My third illustration is, I admit, more speculative and concerns the Far East. The relationships between the four major states in that area are, I suspect, due for a change to reflect the very different strategic situation and the decline in the economic strength of Russia. I believe that this could prove to be an important test of the new European Union in world affairs. If the Union is to fulfil its responsibilities as a major unit of political strength, it will need to reach a fresh, broader understanding and deeper co-operation with both China and Japan, and to do that without damaging our essential relationships with the United States and with Russia.
I mention these issues simply as illustrations of the kind of topics in which I expect the Union to become involved in the future. The matter that we are discussing goes a good deal wider than the simple transfer to Title V of questions previously handled in political co-operation. The existence of the Union in the form that we have created by the Maastricht Treaty will itself generate new areas of activity in foreign affairs that will be wider in scope, longer in range and which will have more significant consequences. Of course this will not all happen at once but we need, I suggest, to recognise the likely scale of change which is about to occur. It was this recognition which I did not readily perceive in the Government's response to our report.
I am not suggesting that the Government should be involved in numerous seminar-type discussions about hypothetical future events, nor do I propose anything resembling a full-blown foreign affairs committee. But I do see the need to enlarge somewhat the present area of scrutiny to cover the work of the CFSP as it develops. There is a case, I believe, for the Government to look again at the three tests listed in paragraph 53 to see whether they could not be applied to both pillars. The test of significance listed there is of real relevance and could be used to confine scrutiny to matters of importance. What we do need is an instrument for informed discussion in a relatively small group, on the basis of a document and supplemented by oral evidence as appropriate. Some minor adaptation of the existing procedure seems to me to be ideal for that purpose. If we could do this, we could make full use of the knowledge and experience available to this House and continue the invaluable contribution made by the Select Committee in the enlarged area of activity before us.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken this evening, I warmly welcome the important report which my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham has presented on the scrutiny by this House of the two new inter-governmental pillars of the European Union which were established in the Maastricht Treaty. I congratulate him and his colleagues

1483
on the Select Committee on their clear account and careful analysis of the complex issues that these profound changes will involve.
I was also glad to see in the Government's response to the report that they are committed to national parliaments playing a pre-eminent role in accountability in these two areas of inter-governmental activity. Indeed as my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham reminded us, it was to the great credit of the British Government that they took the initiative in writing the need for improved scrutiny by national parliaments into the Maastricht Treaty through the declaration on the role of national parliaments. There is therefore no argument, as I see it, that there must be effective parliamentary scrutiny of inter-governmental activity both under the CFSP and the justice and home affairs pillar of the European Union. So the question before us and before the Select Committee is, I submit, not whether but how and in what depth.
On any reading of the Select Committee's report and the oral and written evidence it received, it is clear that both pillars present difficult and sometimes awkward problems for timely and effective parliamentary scrutiny both at national and at European level. The report also rightly reminds us of the need for co-operation between the two Houses of this Parliament to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. The long-established machinery of scrutiny in this House is relatively straightforward in that the responsibility for systematic scrutiny is delegated to a single Select Committee with broad and flexible terms of reference acting in concert with its five sub-committees with their competence over particular aspects of Community activity.
In the other place there are at least three Select Committees and two new Special Standing Committees with interests in these new areas of inter-governmental activity. The Foreign Affairs Committee has recommended to the other place in the report Europe after Maastricht that the Government make it their policy to consult the House before important decisions under the CFSP and the home affairs and justice pillar are made. The Legislation Committee, having produced a valuable report on the new co-decision procedure under the Community pillar, is now preparing to bring forward proposals for the scrutiny of the two new flanking pillars.
Since their inception in 1974 the scrutiny systems in both Houses, although they have operated in different ways, have been designed to give Parliament the opportunity to influence Ministers before they participate in decisions which by treaty have passed from Parliament to Ministers and from national to Community level. That principle of parliamentary reserve has rested on an undertaking given by government and embodied in a House of Commons resolution that, except in special circumstances, Ministers would not agree to any proposals in the Council until parliamentary scrutiny had been completed and the reserve lifted. Adapting that long-standing and well-tried principle to the work of the
1484
new pillars is no easy task. However, in my view i.: is fundamental to the objective of timely and effective scrutiny.
The Select Committee recognises in paragraph 62 of its report that there may well be situations when the need for speed or secrecy, particularly in the case of the CFSP pillar, could make it necessary to restrict what may be disclosed to Parliament or to override the scrutiny reserve, provided an explanation is given once the matter has become public knowledge.
We must also remember that this is but one of 12, and possibly in the not too distant future 16, national parliaments and that other governments may well disclose to their parliaments documents and proposals which have not been made available by cur Government to the British Parliament. I well recall the situation in the spring of 1991 during the Luxembourg presidency when that Government passed the first working text of the draft Maastricht Treaty to the European Parliament but the Foreign Office did not disclose it to our Select: Committee until after we had managed to convince the, Foreign Office that it was already in the public domain. In the event, disclosure at that stage enabled Our Sub-Committee E to undertake a speedy and systematic study of the proposed law-making powers and procedures which was then welcomed by everyone concerned, including the Foreign Office.
In the case of the justice and home affairs pillar, where all the decisions must be taken by unanimity and no qualified majority voting will apply, I doubt whether progress will be other than slow. It will probably be much slower than some of the proposals the Select Committee has had to deal with in the past.
After careful study of all the material provided in the report, it seems to me that the three criteria which have already been mentioned in the debate tonight, which are set out in paragraph 53 of the report and which should determine the documents to be deposited are reasonable and practicable for both pillars, given the long experience of the formal and informal relationships which have been built up over time, the expertise which exists among the Members of this House and the flexible working arrangements which the Select Committee has had to develop in recent years to take account of the speeding up of decision-making in the Community.
I therefore support my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham and urge the Government to reconsider their reservations about depositing documents and applying the traditional scrutiny reserve where possible, as the Select Committee has recommended in the report. If they cannot accept those recommendations they should at the very least agree to review the position after a short period of the working arrangements. I urge the Minister when she replies at the end of the debate to agree to review the position and report back to the House after that short experimental working period
There are several other aspects of the report which I should have liked to comment on, particularly those relating to links with other parliaments, but the hour is late. I shall therefore confine myself briefly to one further point, but nevertheless a very important one. It

1485
relates to the Select Committee structure and its staffing. My noble friend Lord Boston touched on that subject in his opening remarks.
Noble Lords who are present in the Chamber tonight may well recall the rather unique occasion in December 1992 when the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on the first report of the new liaison committee failed, but only on a tied vote of 106 to 106, to allow the Select Committee to reappoint its then existing six sub-committees instead of the five sub-committees recommended by the liaison committee. As a result, Sub-Committee C on social policy and Sub-Committee F on the environment were amalgamated under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham. The committee now has to cope with an extremely wide range of post-Maastricht topics. Although the Select Committee itself could well decide to undertake the work arising from the CFSP pillar, the scrutiny resulting from the justice and home affairs pillar would undoubtedly be too heavy an additional workload for the present Sub-Committee C, even if, as is likely, some of the subject matter would fall within the remit of Sub-Committee F on law and institutions.
There are also bound to be consequential implications for the staffing of the Committee Office, on which so much of the quality and quantity of the Select Committees' work depends. I see from the report—and my noble friend Lord Boston has confirmed tonight—that the Select Committee intends to review these matters after a short period of operating the new procedure. I hope that the review will be completed in good time for the liaison committee's forthcoming review of its sub-committee structure.
I conclude by once again by thanking my noble friend Lord Boston and his colleagues for this valuable report which I believe will have considerable and long-term implications for the future scrutiny work of the House.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just spoken is the fifth speaker on our list this evening, and the first not to be a member of the committee that drafted the report. That is not uncommon. She is a member of what one might call our European family in this Chamber. As someone who does not belong to that family, I propose to take a rather different view of the report and what it teaches us.
It seems to me that we must call into question at some point the value of having a European Communities Committee at all. It does a great deal of work. It takes up the time of a great many useful, active and important Members of your Lordships' House. But what is its effect? Looking over the past 20 years, its main effect has been to help to disguise from Parliament and from the country the major changes that have taken place in Britain's position in Europe and in the world. We have witnessed, and are still witnessing, a continued erosion of this country's capacity to make laws for itself or to raise funds for its needs through its own procedures of
1486
taxation. That is to some extent slid over by the assumption that in the last resort there are parliamentary controls on that process.
Therefore, there are continually debates about procedure and suggestions for improvements in procedures such as the noble Baroness has just referred to, which seem to be an exact parallel to what is very common in other aspects of the British constitutional process. For example, as is manifest at the end of every Session and sometimes more often, we still have the necessity for Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament. For about 300 years that has been a pure affectation: no Clerk of the Parliaments has ever had the courage to say, "La Reine s'avisera", instead of, "La Reine le veult". However, what it has enabled the country to do is to go from a monarchical to a parliamentary system of government, without noticing it or without the pain which has accompanied similar events in other countries.
It seems to me that the accent on procedure rather than content—and here I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to some content of possible problems—is quite dangerous. It is not as though we had reached a terminus in the process or that we could say, "Well, we've given away much, a lot of sovereignty has been removed in one field or another. But now there is a stop and anything which is added to the competence of the European Union will be wholly inter-governmental and therefore naturally it will be under our Parliament's control".
That seems to me to be doubtful and one of the most interesting pages in the report is the evidence of Mr. Amédée Turner, MEP. He said that all this inter-governmental stuff where the justice and home affairs secretaries are concerned is merely transitional, it is cumbersome, wasteful. We must as soon as possible devolve it all into the sphere of the Commission or the Community because that is a proper functioning machine. If that is held by MEPs of this country, I suspect that it is held even more powerfully by MEPs in the European Parliament. Therefore, we must regard the present stage, in that respect at any rate, as precarious. We ought perhaps to be giving more thought to what it would imply.
However, I would rather concentrate in my few remaining minutes on the even more difficult problem of foreign policy. The whole notion of a common foreign and security policy of the present membership of the Union or of that membership when expanded is—as anyone thinking about it or reflecting on recent events knows—the most arrant nonsense. There is an admirable document in the report by Mr. Philip Allott of Trinity College, Cambridge. He points out that we are enmeshed in a whole range, an alphabet soup, of international organisations of various kinds which command us to do this or insist that we do that or enable us to do the other. None of it is logical, none of the memberships is identical and we can, therefore, see that there is a great problem merely from the fact of trying to find what is the European core at which we might look.
The other point which I think is brought out by Mr. Allott and to some extent in the other evidence is the

1487
absurdity that for the foreign policy and security policy pillar we do not even rely on—not my favourite body, but it is a body which can be discovered in one place—the Commission, but on whichever member happens to be the president for six months. At the moment, as noble Lords will be aware, the presidency is held by Greece. That is a country which has embarked on the blockade of a friendly government—a blockade denounced by the other 11 members of the European Union—taking no more notice of that than it normally does of the activities of the European Union, except when it comes to extracting money from it. The Greek Government are now in charge of our foreign policy. That seems to me to exhibit an element of farce, if not of tragedy.
There have been various suggestions about rotating the presidency less frequently, making it more likely that some responsible government will be president. But fundamentally, it is difficult to believe that we would ever have arrived by any process of logic at a system which states that every six months some new government will be in charge of deciding how we cope with such problems of foreign policy as we identify as common to us.
Indeed, in his important and interesting evidence, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out that, in trying to frame such a common policy, the foreign ministers lacked all the sustenance which they would have in their own countries. They have no apparatus for assessing reports as to what is happening in the part of the world to which their attention is being directed, let alone access to similar secrets. None of even the ordinary analysis which is provided in the Foreign Office by its senior staff is available. So the ministers are framing foreign policy—in so far as they are framing it—in a material, intellectual void.
That again is difficult to take seriously and it is difficult to see how improved scrutiny by committees, either in this House or another place, could possibly improve it. There are things which are incapable of improvement.
I do not wish to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and his cohorts of valuable work. I am sure they wish to occupy their energies and their talents. I suggest that the European Communities Committee could usefully—and this takes up a point which was briefly touched on, the recognition of Croatia—investigate what Europe has done in the sphere of common foreign policy as regards the Visegrad 4 and ex-Yugoslavia. Let us find out how they came to their decisions and what those decisions were. It is only by giving this House some feel of the reality that we can escape from what otherwise seems to me a somewhat academic—I use the word advisedly; we have been talking about academic matters all day—pursuit of proper procedures, instead of acting, as I think this House should, as a beacon to the rest of the country about where the pro-European policy of successive governments has landed it.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he discusses European Community
1488
matters. I cannot forbear from informing the House that in the course of the remarks that I shall venture to make I may occasionally dissent from the attitude of both Front Benches to this vital question.
Before I embark on a controversial theme, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston, for the report that the committee has produced. The noble Lord has invariably been most courteous to me, in spite of the fact that if frequently expressed my convictions with some extra emphasis with which many noble Lords may be accustomed. I regret that owing to the consideration by the House of the Maastricht Treaty last July, I was unfortunately unable to be present at most of the committee meetings that took place arid examine the witnesses concerned.
I am in no doubt that the proposals in regard to scrutiny made by the committee are absolutely first-class. I am in no doubt either, having read through the Government's response to the committee's, proposals that—save in one particular instance that I shall mention later—that response is equally satisfactory to me. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has already indicated, what we have been through is a ritual dance. We made all the right noises. I am quite sure that no noble Lord who gave evidence gave the slightest offence to the European Commission. Indeed, that would be most controversial. The sentiments that were expressed were most admirable; and the Government replied accordingly.
The whole trouble is that, although the exercise was carried out with diligence, it has had very little effect in practice. Indeed, the Government know that. With the patriotic fervour with which one often associates Her Majesty's Government in office, they have taken good care that this debate takes place very late at night, after the papers have gone to bed and after the media have closed down, and indeed are not represented here tonight, leaving the population to pay some £4.20 for tomorrow's Hansard (which in 1975 cost 45p) or alternatively to extend their extremely lush incomes after tax on paying some £16.60 for the report itself. Unfortunately therefore, tonight we can be quite (if I may say so) "palsy-walsy" about this matter. We can talk it over all together in the complete assurance that the public will never know about it. That is of course the way things go. I can quite understand the Government finding it convenient.
I made the statement that, in spite of all the scrutiny and all the good wishes and affirmations of the Government in regard to the recommendations that were made to them, there have been one or two difficulties. Those may be exemplified, and perhaps the House will bear with me while I give a specific example to prove my point. The difficulties are nowhere more obvious than in the Select Committee's attitude, for example, towards the European budget and the Government's response to the Select Committee's requests after scrutiny. Some might almost say "demands", but that would be asking too much of the Select Committee—it never "demands" anything; it merely "requests" and puts it in very polite terms.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of the slippage that takes place. I shall give it only in regard to

1489
the European Community budget. Some little time back—in November last—I asked the Government a Question on whether they would provide to Parliament copies of the preliminary draft budget in good time for it to be properly scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee. The Government were most forthcoming. Indeed, at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"The Government will continue to press the Commission and the Council Secretariat to produce English language versions … as quickly as possible".—[Official Report, 23/11/93; col. 132.]
He gathered that his reply did not meet with a good response and after consultation gave a formal undertaking by the Government in the following terms:
"All I can do is to repeat the assurances given by my noble friend Lord Caithness that in future these documents will be put in front of the House in adequate time to allow the House and the noble Lord to scrutinise them".—[Official Report, 23/11/93; col. 134.]
That was such a firm undertaking that I could barely believe my ears. However, my optimism was speedily dissipated. There was a slight slippage.
I come to the Government's response to the Select Committee's report in February. The Government said that:
"it is the Government's intention to deposit it quickly and to supply an explanatory memorandum as soon as possible. The Government propose that this should be on the same timescale as for deposited EC documents, ie within ten working days of deposit".
I regarded that as a further considerable advance. But on 23rd March, in reply to exactly the same questions that I put in November, all that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, could say was that the Government would do:
"all that we possibly can to ensure that all the documentation is made available to this Parliament, so that it can exercise adequate scrutiny as early as possible".—[Official Report, 21/3/94; col. 494.]
So the firm date shifted and shifted imperceptibly until we are left with the situation that they have no obligation at all to do anything other than try to ensure that the information is supplied to us as soon as possible.
We are not talking of something trivial; we are talking of the European budget which comprises one of the most important proposals made by the Commission every year to all the powers. It is of particular importance to us because in the foreseeable future it will at least involve a net contribution from our taxpayers' pockets of £2,200 million —according to the figures which have only recently been supplied by the Government in their Expenditure Estimates. So already there is a slippage.
The fact of the matter is that the Government cannot deliver. They would like to do so. They will continue to affirm that they wish to do this or that. What they cannot or apparently dare not do is follow that up in the council itself. They decline to do that. They say that they will do it, but they do not do it. Therefore, all the existing arrangements in regard to scrutiny will merely record a ritual dance.
Exactly the same considerations apply to the European Parliament. From 1962 right through to 1986 the European Parliament was officially the European Assembly. From 1962 onwards it called itself the European Parliament, clearly with one eye on the future of enlarging its own share of responsibility.
1490
The Commission is responsible for the interpretation of the treaties and the enforcement of their provisions. Was there a squeak heard from the Commission, refusing to acknowledge the European Assembly's new title that it had assumed for itself? There was not a squeak out of the Commission. Likewise, the British Government made no squeak at all. They did not like to feel that they were being anti-communautaire. So they went along with that. At the time when I was in the European Parliament, I had a European passport which, strictly speaking, in European law was illegal because it was an assembly rather than a parliament. It was an assembly until 1986, when the change was officially made by the Single European Act.
I fear—and I am afraid that I shall be held to be right—that all the steps that are being taken are merely a prelude to the 1996 inter-governmental conference, by which time the European Parliament and the Commission will have manoeuvred themselves—with our consent, because no effective and enforceable scrutiny has taken place—into a position whereby in 1996 they will try to install verbally a federal Europe, whether we say yes or no. All the interim steps being taken by Parliament and the Commission are designed to that end.
It is not as though the second of the two pillars is any longer on its own. I am talking now of the home affairs and justice pillar. There was a time—indeed it has been treated so by my noble friend Lord Boston—when it was a completely separate branch of European Union activity under Article K of the new treaty. But we know already that the treaty provisions in relation to fraud have now become entangled with and will shortly become indistinguishable from action taken under Article K as announced by the Home Secretary recently in connection with the enforcement of the various fraud provisions in member states.
So already there is a merge between Article K dealing with home and justice and the ordinary provisions of the treaty, notably under Articles 188 and 109. Exactly the same is happening under the foreign affairs treaty. Under the CFSP provisions a new committee has been established. The Commission also has an interest which is established, and before long the personnel of that new committee dealing with common security problems will be merged with COREPER. Once again COREPER, which has no responsibility for reporting publicly on anything, will do exactly what it is doing today: is ruling the Community in so far as the existing provisions permit.
Those are the prospects and they are all part of the drive towards a federal Europe to which the Government are officially opposed but to which, by their acquiescence in the Council of Ministers and their tolerance of the various events that take place in the member states, they are contributing. When I first came to this place 20 years ago it never occurred to me that probably the most undemocratic assembly in the world—to wit your Lordships' House—should have as its principal task the defence of the liberties, rights and responsibilities of another place. It is your Lordships' House which is trying to rescue the other place from the

1491
results of its own indifference to what is happening in Europe and the powers that are being taken away from it.
That is an agreeable role, but I shall not pursue it further at this stage in case I cause a ripple of dissent, and I would not wish to do that. But I give your Lordships this assurance. When I repeat what I have said today—on the assumption that I am spared to repeat it—in years to come, it will be seen that it shows a greater approximation to the truth than the alibis put forward on behalf of the European Union.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and ended with a fine climax in the two speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Bruce of Donington. I agree with much of what they say, though I find that from what they say I draw exactly the opposite conclusions.
Before embarking on my remarks I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for the way in which he chaired our Select Committee and for his introduction to our debate this evening. I thank also our legal adviser, the clerk and, almost above all, the witnesses, who gave extremely interesting evidence which in itself justifies the work of the committee. In particular, I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that Mr. Améedée Turner's evidence was extremely significant and the written evidence of Mr. Allott of Trinity College, Cambridge was something which should not be forgotten.
The job of the committee primarily was to inquire into the nature of decision-making under the two inter-governmental pillars. It seems to me that the committee, either deliberately or just in the ordinary course of its investigations, has given an extremely vivid example of how that decision-making takes place and, in my view, how deeply unsatisfactory it is. What we have at the moment is a quasi-federal state. It is said that we are moving towards one without it being recognised that we have a centre with powers and we have other parts with other powers. That is the definition of a federal state. We have a quasi-federal state already. But what we have is an extremely undemocratic one in which a large number of the decisions are taken in secret. That is one of the most significant points about the report in indicating just how those secret decisions are taken.
What we are discussing today, or should be discussing, is how we can keep tabs on the European Union, which was created at Maastricht, and what part national parliaments can play in that process, bearing in mind—a point which has not been mentioned so far—that the European Union is about to be enlarged. What we are talking about is what is popularly known as the democratic deficit. Central to that —this point is discussed far too little in your Lordships' House—is the decision-making process of the Council of Ministers.
Ministers giving evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee or to its sub-committee constantly reiterate and emphasise their accountability to Parliament. But Ministers who serve on the Council of Ministers meet in private. Since we do not know what they say, or how
1492
they said it, or even how they voted, that kind of accountability to Parliament is of a rather tenuous nature. Again and again in the evidence which was submitted to your Lordships' Select Committee, the secret way in which decisions were reached is emphasised.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence of Mr. Amédée Turner, a Conservative MEP, chairman of the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs, talking about the role of his committee in supervising the legislative work of the inter-governmental council responsible for the third pillar. Mr. Turner tells us that his committee will know of the legislative agenda coming before Ministers. It will discuss it. But what it will not know is the nature of the ministerial debate or the position adopted by individual Ministers or individual countries. I quote Mr. Turner:
"It is a very tenuous form of legislative democracy".
Nor indeed is there any reason that either he, or for that matter I, can see why deliberations about legislative matters should be in private. Indeed, at Edinburgh we. were delighted to learn that it was decided that the proceedings of the Council should be published. But, says Mr. Turner, and I quote him on page 28:
"these councils"—
under the inter-governmental arrangements and the two. Pillars—
"are not within the Treaty of Rome, they are the Union, so no doubt",
said Mr. Turner,
"they will say: 'Oh, no, that is quite different here'"
If Mr. Turner is right, then Maastricht, far from marking an advance towards greater transparency, openness and less secrecy, will in fact be a retreat from the position adopted at Edinburgh. It will be a retrograde step, making oversight by this Parliament, other national parliaments or the European Parliament more rather than less difficult.
As regards the third pillar, the justice arid home affairs pillar, as my noble friend Lord Lester pointed out, we are dealing with issues which touch on the daily lives, rights and liberties of citizens, where transparency, openness and democratic control are absolutely essential but where under the present arrangements they are absent. The fact is that the inter-governmental system, the adoption of which is the pride of the British Government as one of their great achievements at Maastricht, in the words of Mr. Turner, has,
"a good deal of all the sins of an inter-governmental system. that bureaucracy, secrecy and administrative discretion which is also a good description of the home offices".
That is the truth about the inter-governmental system. He went on to indicate that he thought that there must be a better way of doing things.
Perhaps I may point out to those who are critical of the Commission's bureaucracy that the bureaucracy under the inter-governmental system which will control all matters, if one looks at Article K4, will be the bureaucracy of the national governments.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he quite accurate not as regards what Mr. Turner says but in connection with the previous system? Under the European political

1493
co-operation nothing came out at all either to the Parliament or to national parliaments. Similarly, as regards justice and home affairs and issues raised in the Trevi group and the multiplicity of working groups, nothing was known outside. Does the noble Lord agree that there is a slight improvement under the new system of pillars—that something will come out which hitherto has been completely shrouded both from Parliament and the public?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, there may be something in what the noble Baroness has said, as there often is. But what we have gained is very little. I believe that we put at risk a great number of other things by the inter-governmental arrangement—to which I shall return.
The weakness of the inter-governmental approach in foreign affairs is even more obvious, as has been made apparent in response to events in Yugoslavia. What it has demonstrated is weakness, lack of leadership and procrastination and then settling for the lowest common denominator.
Once again I quote from the evidence which we received, this time from Mr. Mcmillan-Scott, a member of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs and Security. He described the failure of the European Parliament to get in on the Yugoslav business, having been told by the Council of Ministers that this was strictly an inter-governmental matter and nothing to do with it. He said:
"the diplomatic process was done on a traditional basis and if I may say to you the League of Nations is a good model".
Indeed, the League of Nations results are very like the kind of results which it seems at times this process was achieving. It was said that it was very difficult for a group of 12 nations acting on the unanimity principle to show any particular leadership unless, as is the case in NATO, there is a dominant partner. It is here that the matter of enlargement—which has played a very small part in our debate this evening—comes in.
The weaknesses in the decision-making process devised at Maastricht will, when the Union is enlarged from 12 to 16 or 17, become even more acute. As Mr. Allott of Trinity College, Cambridge, demonstrates in his written evidence to the committee, the European Union as constituted at Maastricht is a kind of legal and constitutional mess of almost unrivalled proportions. If one wants an example of that, I suggest that noble Lords look at page 51, paragraph 9(1), which I shall not quote, about the various structures in European foreign policy at the moment, the enormous number of organisations involved and the cats-cradle of complication which has been created.
During and ever since the Maastricht debates, noble Lords have commented on its institutional consequences. The institutional consequences of enlargement demand urgent and serious study. One of the virtues of the report is that it makes that obvious. The fiasco over voting and the blocking veto before Easter made that point even more obvious, and enlargement emphasises it even more. If it is difficult to get 12 countries acting on a unanimity principle to show any practical leadership in a difficult situation, surely it is even more
1494
difficult to get 16 or 17 countries to do so. It is difficult not to conclude that as a consequence there will be increased pressure for greater majority voting.
However, the report does not seem to recognise or face up to the problem that, if there is increased majority voting, the authority and power of the national parliaments is automatically diminished. Not surprisingly, the report attaches great importance to the role of the national parliaments in supervising the two pillars. That is evident in the conclusions given in paragraphs 65 and 71. However, might not 16 parliaments make the old Polish Diet look like a model of parliamentary efficiency?
One of the most important things about the report is that it raises issues which are moving towards us at very high speed and which it seems to me that the Government refuse to face up to, to consider or to consult on. The IGC in 1996 must face up to those major problems and reach some conclusions about them. Although people will not like to say so, that IGC will be a kind of constitutional convention. It is important that before it meets our Government should know where they stand and where they want to go and that they should consult the people and Parliament of this country. However, the Government show no signs of having taken these matters into consideration or of having taken any steps to deal with them.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like all noble Lords, even the critics, I begin by complimenting my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham and his colleagues on their work.
I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that it is all very nice and academic, but essentially a waste of time. I should like to deal with that point initially because, as a former member of the European Commission, I can tell the House that the noble Lord's belief that such reports are simply ignored and have no notice taken of them is palpably wrong. I cite three cases. The recent debate on a report on the enforcement of competition law followed other reports on exactly the same topic. Not only did the Commission note many of the issues that had been raised, but it actually took firm action on them. There have been other reports on questions affecting the environment. As a former Environment Commissioner, I can tell the House that those reports were carefully read, perused and, in many respects, acted on also.
Although the Commission has not, by any manner of means, satisfied my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on the question of fraud, a number of propositions that have been advanced in reports from your Lordships' House have also been acted on—but, as I have said, not, I know, to the total satisfaction of my noble friend. It is as well to record that such reports are not mere academic exercises.
I noted with some interest the speech of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, as always, extremely entertaining, and of course he put forward his view with great force and good humour. I am sure that he is right to assert that too few people take note of the proceedings in Parliament generally, let alone this House. One can

1495
scarcely find a reference to the proceedings in another place, even in the quality newspapers these days. Perhaps if someone had the temerity, Heseltine-like, to seize the Mace tonight, the press would come swarming in and something would happen; but it would take that sort of thing to cultivate any great interest in this debate, and yet it is an important debate. The speeches, even those that have criticised the debate, appear to have come from people with a great wealth of experience.
The criticisms are worth making because they enable us to concentrate perhaps a little less complacently upon some of the issues which have emerged. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about some of the dangers of inter-governmental control, because much of that inter-governmental control is based upon secrecy, a point to which I shall return in a moment. I am mostly disappointed with the Government's response to the propositions that have been advanced by the report. Yes, I know that they pay lip service to the value of the report, but, in truth, they have moved scarcely at all from the position that they adopted in the evidence of Ministers and civil servants, which is scarcely a good augury of parliamentary scrutiny committees on the deliberation of Ministers at the Council of Ministers.
I believe that the committee was right to repeat a preliminary point which had been made in an earlier report on the draft treaty, which is as germane to the considerations of today as they were then. It said:
"The Community is not yet based on 'open covenants, openly arrived at—"'.
That of course is the democratic deficit. There are issues which give rise to great confidentiality; but I am convinced that what the European Union requires is far fewer assertions about the need for secrecy and confidentiality and far greater transparency; less hostility by governments to effective parliamentary scrutiny and better supervision by and accountability to Parliament as a whole.
We are living in dangerous times. It is the first time since the end of the war that neo-fascists are likely to secure a hand on the levers of government in one of our member states—Italy. I believe that that arises in substantial measure from cynicism about politicians, political institutions and decision-making that is not related only to Italy. Then, the four countries seeking accession to the European Union will have to undergo referenda. The opinion polls show that the people of those countries are worried about that very issue. Who are we to talk about parliamentary control being effective in relation to European Union issues when less and less parliamentary control is effected over so many elements in our domestic political life?
I believe that openness and effective parliamentary control must be part of the essential weaponry against these catastrophic inclinations—certainly potentially so —which flow from the democratic deficit. That is especially true of the functions of the Council of Ministers and most emphatically in relation to issues which lie at the heart of this report.
As I said in previous debates—it may be anecdotal but it is worth repeating—I attended many meetings of the Council of Ministers. I also attended many meetings
1496
which followed the council meetings when Ministers addressed the press. I am not talking only about British Ministers, but I certainly include them. Frankly, representations were made about what had happened that were somewhat different from what had transpired in the secret conclave of the council. That is not good for democracy.
There can be no question that in effectively scrutinising an ever increasing body of European Union legislation which emerges from the council Parliament is put to even greater tests. Those burdens will become increasingly heavy. In essence, the response from government should be to appreciate the problems in all their complexities and to resolve to co-operate to mitigate those problems and, as far as possible, to remove obstacles which stand in the way of Parliament in carrying out these functions. In my view, that has riot been the measure of the Government's response as far as reality is concerned. Yes, my Lords, the words may be there, but the spirit is not always willing.
Where has there been any recognition that inadequate resources are available to this House and to the other place to undertake the tasks which are increasingly burdensome? If it is critical to parliamentary democracy, which Ministers in which departments of state have suggested that we need more not fewer Select Committees or sub-committees to do the job? That point was made most eloquently by my noble friend Lady Serota. Why do the Government take such a dismissive view of the role of the European Parliament? Why, if their bona fides are intact, do the Government not recognise that parliamentary scrutiny can best be achieved without duplication by the European Parliament playing a complementary role to that of national parliaments in carrying out these necessary functions? My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington characteristically laughed; he has no belief in the European Parliament. But, of course, things have changed since he was there in 1979, which is a long time ago—
Lord Bruce of Donington: They have changed for the worst!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, how does he know? He has not been there!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, yes, I have.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if he has been there, he has not studied it very well. But as I must be the arbiter on this occasion, I shall call an end to this. Essentially, what was said in 1985—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I hesitate to correct my noble friend, but he has mentioned me. However, I was in Brussels for two days in the middle of February. I rejoined my old committee, the Budget Committee, which I can assure him has not improved in the slightest.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that he enjoyed the food while he was there. I shall not enlarge on the matter. I happen to believe that the European

1497
Parliament does a lot of invaluable work. Its scrutiny of many issues, in particular those relating to judicial and home affairs, has been extremely good.
In 1985 the committee reported on the external competence of the European Communities. It concluded:
"the current machinery for parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate in relation to treaty making by the European Community. There is no effective democratic control. The influence which Parliament can bring to bear is less than that which it has on international negotiations undertaken by the Government and the opportunities for scrutiny afforded to Parliament are less than those offered to the European Parliament".
I believe that remains true, and it will apply with equal, if not greater, force to scrutiny of the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union, unless governments are more accommodating to those requirements for a more democratic process.
Inter-governmental co-operation in the justice and home affairs field has been put, for the first time, on a firm treaty basis following Maastricht. Many of those issues, including asylum policy and immigration, vitally affect civil liberties and human rights.
As regards the Trevi and Schengen groups and the ad hoc group dealing with inter-governmental affairs on immigration, my view is—and I speak as the chairman of the Refugee Council—that Parliament has not been adequately informed of the detailed work carried out by those committees. Previous international agreements on human rights have not been given proper weight. There has been no judicial authority competent to ensure the uniform application of the new obligations which are to be undertaken.
The basic reason for that is that those groups operated in virtually total secrecy. Secrecy is tantamount to amounting to the exclusion to the views of people who should have a role in decision making. Experts in different fields of immigration law and practice, consultants in various fields, non-governmental organisations and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees have all been effectively excluded from the processes of thought of those various inter-governmental groups.
It may be highly convenient for governments to behave in that way and to exclude outside interference or pressures, including the attention of the public. However, that is not good for human rights, civil liberties or democracy. I very much applaud the point taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his contribution.
Rather than brushing aside the role of the European Parliament—and that is how it was put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, when the Home Secretary was giving evidence—it would be more appropriate to compliment the capacity of the European Parliament to do extremely useful work in many of the fields that it has undertaken. It has a committee on civil liberties and internal affairs which was established under the chairmanship of Mr. Amédée Turner in 1992 to afford some prospect—albeit limited; and that is not the fault of the European Parliament—of democratic scrutiny of those matters.
1498
The European Commission does keep the European Parliament informed, and the European Parliament does interrogate a Minister representing the presidency, for the time being, in office. The European Parliament does receive final texts of resolutions and recommendations from the presidency of the Council. Naturally, therefore, that work should be taken on board and not simply overlooked as if of no consequence by our own parliamentary scrutiny in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that it would be appropriate to look at the German experience in this regard. In the Bundesrat (the Senate) Members of the European Parliament join in the deliberations with senators in the work of scrutiny and other committees without, of course, having a vote. That might be looked at with some approbation for our own parliamentary procedures; but that has not figured in the report's conclusions which we are now considering.
The work that has been done by this committee has been extremely useful. It should have received a more generous and positive response from the Government. That would have been the best way in which to ensure that the Government really believe that the role of parliamentary scrutiny is vital to our democratic processes. I believe, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who made such a forceful and intelligent speech, that we have much more to fear from the secret and furtive nature of decision making that has characterised so much of the work of ministerial councils than there is to fear from the widening of the possibilities of proper scrutiny and invigilation of what happens in our name.
9.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his introduction to the debate, and the European Communities Committee as a whole for the thorough report that it produced on the role that the House should play in the scrutiny of the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union. I should also like to thank all speakers for their contributions to tonight's interesting and very wide debate, which has ranged a good deal further than the scrutiny report—and that is no bad thing.
There was one moment a short while ago when I thought that I might have to rush to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He has been absolutely vigilant in seeking to find out what committees are really doing in the European Parliament. While the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talks of an. ideal world of people working together, it is sad to find that very often the reality is quite some distance from what the noble Lord is saying and, sometimes, a little nearer to the criticisms that are made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Of course, neither noble Lord is right in his condemnation of the situation; but there is an element of truth in what each of them says.
Perhaps I may make a few scene-setting remarks and then respond briefly to some of the points raised, as the hour is late. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary made absolutely clear in their observations

1499
submitted in response to the committee's report that we are fully aware of the great interest of both Houses of Parliament in the work of the two inter-governmental pillars of the European Union. The Government have made a clear commitment to find arrangements for parliamentary supervision which are appropriate for the work carried out under each of the inter-governmental pillars and their accountability to the British Parliament in those areas.
I should emphasise that it is accountability to Westminster that we are talking about tonight. However, in the future, there may be ways in which members of the European Parliament can work better in the scrutiny with Members of the Westminster Parliament. Certainly, the German experience is not a bad one. Indeed, I well remember when we were in the presidency some eight years ago going before a committee of the German Parliament made up of MEPs and members of the Bundestag. It was a remarkable experience—partly because it had to be done in German —but it was also very interesting to see that many of the same misconceptions that prevail here were also, at least at that time, prevalent in Germany.
As the Government emphasised in their observations on the committee's report, we believe that the arrangements for the involvement of Parliament should take account of the substantively different nature of the work conducted under the two separate pillars—the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs. I turn first to the CFSP. I realise that there is a difference of opinion here, but I believe that there is a very good reason for it. We believe that the arrangements for parliamentary involvement in CFSP should broadly follow the model of involvement in other areas of foreign policy. The Government are committed to pursuing an open and substantive dialogue with Parliament on foreign policy issues, including on CFSP. That must be reflected in the arrangements. There are regular opportunities for Parliament to debate foreign affairs issues and to question Ministers on particular aspects of government policy. Those general policy debates set the framework within which the negotiations on CFSP will take place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said, I believe that it is right and proper that Parliament should monitor closely the development of CFSP, which is an important element in our national foreign policy. After all, we are contributing to CFSP and I can say that we have frequently been in the lead in getting initiatives adopted by our fellow member states which have been all the stronger for the support of 12 than they would have been simply with our support and, perhaps, that of one or two other member states.
We believe it right and proper that Ministers should work closely with your Lordships and with Members in another place to ensure that we achieve satisfactory arrangements. However, this has to be balanced against the flexibility and discretion which every government needs in order to conduct diplomatic negotiations on detailed policy, which often require both confidentiality and speed. I can assure your Lordships that this is in no way an attempt to keep from noble Lords that which they feel they should know but it is absolutely vital in
1500
these negotiations to have room for manoeuvre and also to have confidentiality because on many occasions we are dealing with a third country or with another international body. It can be exceedingly difficult if the total mandate has had to be discussed in advance openly and without any confidentiality.
I disagree profoundly with the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bonham-Carter, as regards the following matter. In non-CFSP areas of foreign policy Parliament has worked out how it will relate to its Select Committees. Here we have a slightly different situation, particularly where we are moving towards discussions and agreements. However, I believe we can work this out. We may not have got it right at the first response. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, asked me to review the matter. We will certainly monitor our practice most carefully and it could well be that within a few months both sides will find a better way of working. However, I believe we should give the initial arrangements at least a chance and then review them as the noble Lord has suggested.
Unlike business under the Community pillar and the justice and home affairs pillar, not only does CFSP discussion often involve third countries but it often involves other bodies whose papers are kept confidential. That is one of the reasons why I believe that probably the majority of draft documents produced under CFSP, although not all of them, will need to be kept confidential. I am convinced that our national interests are as secure in CFSP as they are in other areas of foreign policy such as NATO and the United Nations where the Government have to enter into negotiations. That is the reason why the Government do not believe that substantially new arrangements are necessary for parliamentary involvement. We should try to build on our existing arrangements which were developed for European political co-operation but which will be much more open—as my noble friend Lady Elles said—than they were in the days of ETC, when discussions were held behind closed doors. Certainly common foreign and security policy is not in the same league as that and it will be more open.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum to the committee included the Government's decision that Ministers should offer to give briefings to the relevant Select Committees in both Houses. The noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Bridges, and my noble friend Lady Elles referred to that matter. We are open to suggestions from the relevant Select Committee as to how often this should occur. However, we do not believe that we should tie ourselves to some inflexible specific dates but rather that the dialogue should be regular. The Government view such Select Committee briefings as valuable opportunities not only for informed discussion but also for two-way dialogue, because there is much that can be learned. I hope that these briefings will constitute open sessions because I believe that to be the most useful format. However, there may be occasions when, if the subject matter is particularly delicate, it would be better for the sessions to be held in confidence. I anticipate that sessions held in confidence would be the exception rather than the rule.

1501
I hope that that shows the Government's recognition of the vital interest which the Select Committees will take in CFSP. I also hope that when we come to work through such sessions we can look ahead a little so that issues are not taken simply because it is anticipated that they may arise in the Foreign Affairs Committee in a month or so but because they may come up in the months or years ahead, since there is a need to look forward in this debate.
The work under the justice and home affairs pillar is important and touches on many aspects of justice and law enforcement. These are at the core of the citizen's relations with the state. They are intimately linked with the question of national sovereignty. In the Government's view, the duty of holding the Executive accountable for the way this form of co-operation is carried out naturally and rightly falls to national parliaments.
The Government believe that their proposals for the conduct of parliamentary scrutiny of work under the justice and home affairs pillar provide the right kind of framework and balance of information to secure effective supervision of this important and sensitive area. Clearly it is essential for the purpose of constructive parliamentary oversight that the right documents are identified and deposited at as early a stage as possible. The wide nature of the work envisaged under the justice and home affairs pillar means that there will be a broad selection of documents for Parliament to see, and the Government's proposals are framed with that objective in mind.
The Government intend that Parliament should receive the first full text of any convention or proposal which would, if accepted, require primary legislation in this country, as well as other documents which are judged to be of significant importance. Noble Lords will appreciate that that is a broad undertaking, and from time to time it may be necessary to qualify it to meet the demands of security and confidentiality. However, again, we hope that that will be very much the exception.
The Government intend to interpret the criteria in an open way conducive to dialogue with Parliament. We do not anticipate that security and confidentiality considerations will apply frequently. We accept the need to give the term "significant importance" a wide interpretation to include the type of document identified in the committee's report. For example, proposals which might require secondary legislation or would otherwise impose legal commitments on the UK would certainly be judged to be of significant importance, as would other documents which helped to provide an overview of the work—for example, work programmes or progress reports.
If the Government conclude that a document produced under the justice and home affairs pillar meets the criteria for submission to Parliament, it is the Government's intention to deposit it quickly, together with the explanatory note to help Parliament's consideration of it.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked what would happen once the Select Committees have received draft
1502
justice and home affairs proposals. Clearly it will be for the committees themselves to decide how they exercise their responsibility. However, I believe that, as in the case of EC scrutiny, the committees will be able to examine the nature of what is being proposed, call for further evidence from the Government or elsewhere, and recommend debates to make Parliament's views on the matter well known. That will be a real step forward.
Perhaps I may now deal with the difficult matter of those draft CFSP documents not to be submitted to Parliament. We noted very carefully the suggestion in your Lordships' European Communities Committee report that documents under both inter-governmental pillars which fulfil one of the three criteria set out in paragraph 53 of the committee's report should in principle be provided to Parliament. The Government will continue to make available to both Houses of Parliament the text of CFSP statements, declarations, common positions and joint actions once they are agreed. However, as I hinted in my earlier remarks, we think it may not be appropriate in a large number of cases to lay drafts of CFSP texts before Parliament because of the need for speed and confidentiality. I have noted the strong comments that have been made during the debate tonight and I shall bring them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
Perhaps I may further assure noble Lords that if certain CFSP documents fall within existing scrutiny guidelines, there is no question that they should be deposited. Where any CFSP documents are not subject to confidentiality considerations and meet at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 53 of the report, the Government will consider making those available to Parliament at an early stage. It may be that we should work out some long-term guidelines, but I believe that we need to keep the matter under review and perhaps return to it some time in the future.
One of the things I should hate to see happen is that in those cases where CFSP documents had not been laid before the committee we could not proceed because of the scrutiny reserve. I think that that is something on which we need to work in a little more detail and I shall be in contact with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about it.
I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in regard to his wishes for the future. Of course, we have all read the Euro-manifesto of his party which states that inter-governmental arrangements among member states should be incorporated into the European Community framework. Because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, should be reassured, I say that the Government oppose the view put forward by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. We particularly wanted common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs to be under the separate pillars because they should be the responsibility of the member states of the Union. They should not come under the aegis of the European Commission. Perhaps I may turn to the examples of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. While she is dealing again with the question of a common foreign

1503
policy and security considerations, will she tell the House whether any documents that come under that heading deal with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in relation to the activities of the Greek Government and the Greek presidency in recent weeks?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I speak from memory, but I do not think that anything that has happened under the CFSP has come up under the Greek presidency. If I am in error, I shall write to the noble Lord, but I am fairly certain that there has been nothing of the nature to which he refers.
I turn now to the examples of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in the debate. They were understandably taken from the field in which he is so distinguished a practitioner, human rights. Perhaps I may point out to him that subjects dealt with under CFSP are certainly not of that character and, if I may use the noble Lord's words, which I think I noted correctly, they are not likely to affect the rights and duties of individuals, particularly under our domestic law. Human rights questions are matters of traditional foreign policy. On the other hand, we have said that where activity under the pillars is likely to lead to changes directly affecting individuals—which will almost certainly be the case under the justice and home affairs pillar—draft documents will be supplied so that scrutiny can take place. That has already begun to happen. For example, the draft Europol convention documents have already been deposited with the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Boston. I do not think that the question of incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights and the right of individual petition, important though they are, is directly relevant to the present issues. However, when I read the debate I shall go carefully over what the noble Lord said.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as he normally does in our debates, referred to the European Community budget. I know that he has been extremely concerned that documents should come to this House and to another place as soon as possible. He knows also that I happen to agree with him on this matter. Just as he does, I sometimes get frustrated at the timing of the delivery of documents. But I say to him that we really will try to ensure that the Commission's overview as regards the preliminary draft budget is made available to Parliament, provided that we can get our hands on it. We also intend to try to get it well in advance of the publication of the preliminary draft budget in mid-June. If I have any more news for the noble Lord I will convey it to him directly. I understand his concern.
The noble Lord also spoke of the future and made prophecies that the pillars would collapse. I assure him that under a Conservative Government the pillars will not collapse. But I warn the noble Lord, given that his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said that he agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, had said, which included bringing the pillars under the European Commission, that he needs to be extremely careful about the way he is going to vote in the future. There is no merger between the political committee and COREPER, and we do not intend there to be one. There is no merger of action on fraud under
1504
Title VI and under the EC treaty. In both cases, action under the pillars and action under the EC treaties is complementary, but it is separate. We intend that it should remain that way. We certainly do not feel that there should be any—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister give way? Since she has said positively that she rejects the idea of the pillars merging into the Community arrangements as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, does that mean that Mr. Améedéee Turner will not be supported by the Conservative Party for re-election to the European Parliament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I had understood that he was not even to be a candidate. But perhaps that may have something to do with it.
The other point that I wanted to make on the question of merging the pillars—it is an important point to get absolutely clear—concerns the justice and home affairs pillar and the Community. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the Home Secretary's initiative is for a joint action under the third pillar. No Community legislation is proposed, and the action is intended to be implemented under the national law of each member state, not in any other way. 'That is why we have the pillared arrangement: in order to maintain those matters of justice arid home affairs under our national law.
We have had a long debate, and there is yet another debate to come. So perhaps I may finally say this to your Lordships' House. The conclusion in the Select Committee's report is that, wherever possible, a proposal made under the inter-governmental pillars should not be agreed until parliamentary scrutiny is complete. Such a scrutiny has up to now been exercised only in the context of proposals for Community legislation. We hope that it will not be necessary to replicate this procedure in the area covered by the two inter-governmental pillars. No Community legislation will arise under either inter-governmental pillar. In the event that domestic legislation is required as the result of an agreement negotiated under the justice arid home affairs pillar, then Parliament will, of course, have the opportunity to consider the issue in full during the requisite national legislative process. I believe that by proceeding with the committee as far as we can, we can incorporate into our considerations the very points for which the noble Lord's committee has asked.
The provision of a scrutiny reserve would not enhance parliamentary accountability. But the Government's principal objective is to ensure that Parliament has sufficient time in which to consider and respond to proposals before any decisions are taken in the Council. There may be times when decisions have to be made quickly. But that should not be the rule. In those cases the Government do not believe that it would be justified that outstanding scrutiny requirements should preclude us from signalling agreement where it would be appropriate to do so. That is something that we should monitor as the months go by.

1505
The Government wish to co-operate fully with both Houses in ensuring arrangements for appropriate and effective supervision of the CFSP and justice and home affairs pillars. We will keep under review all the arrangements that have been discussed so far and will try to respond to the needs of Parliament.
I thank your Lordships for an interesting debate. I look forward to future debates on CFSP and on justice and home affairs issues, to which I am sure that this House will make a valuable contribution. Maybe in future debates we should take those matters separately. The issues are so wide and the arrangements complex that I believe they deserve more time than your Lordships' House has been able to give them tonight.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, we have been debating at a late hour what my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis called an important matter. But at least one can say about the timing that such has been the quality of the contributions from all parts of your Lordships' House—contributions which have been critical and those which have been not critical and in other ways positive—this has been a debate well worth waiting for.
It would be imposition upon your Lordships at this hour, especially with another debate to come, if I were to embark upon a detailed survey of what has been said. So I shall confine myself to a few remarks. First, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their kind words about the committee as well as personally. In particular, I want to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, for her contribution to our debate. Perhaps she will forgive me if I do not go over all the various suggestions that she made tonight.
I should like to seize upon one of them that she touched on early in her remarks and to which she returned to a certain extent in her closing remarks; namely, her suggestion that the procedures for examining what are in many cases most momentous matters affecting people individually and generally are to be monitored—that is a significant word which she used. Another part of her very helpful undertaking tonight was her assurance to your Lordships that the procedures will be reviewed in the light of experience. I noted her words that there may well come out of the discussions that will take place between Her Majesty's Government and your Lordships' Select Committee the possibility of a meeting of minds. That is promising.
I realise that the noble Baroness can go no further in her commitments this evening. But, after all, it depends on how the practice works out and how we believe that we can obtain what she has described as a commitment by the Government to finding the most appropriate method of examining these matters and scrutinising them properly. As I said, all the contributions tonight have been significant. The point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about draft texts to be seen. That was also one of the points taken up by the noble Lord,
1506
Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in his powerful speech and persuasive arguments. Again, that matter was touched on in another way by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, indicated her anxiety to ensure that what she described as the powerful points made in the debate are taken into account. One of those points was on scrutiny reserve, made by my noble friend Lady Serota, who has a great deal of experience in this field. As with so many discussions and debates in your Lordships' House, there were differences on all sides. But there is almost always common ground; and there is common ground between what my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had to say about keeping watch on the effectiveness of the committee. The committee does that itself and, as the committee said, it also needs to be done by this House generally.
Again, other important matters relating to effectiveness were touched on my by noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who also referred to the democratic deficit and the part that this scrutiny plays in offsetting it. That is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, too, referred.
We have had a wide-ranging debate and we in the Select Committee can draw some comfort, as I said earlier, from the observations and pointers given by the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies
10.25 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of responses to the consultation paper Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies, they will reconsider their proposals.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that a subject so important to so many people has come so late at night. What are we doing with this Green Paper? Many of us will remember "Cathy Come Home". As late as 1974–75 nearly 3,000 children were taken away from their parents and into care simply because their parents were without a home. Some local authorities housed the homeless, others, as I remember, put them on a bus. Norwich ended up housing most of the homeless of Norfolk.
In 1977 the late and good Stephen Ross introduced his homelessness Bill which drew on Conservative Party drafting and Labour Government time. That 1977 Act required all housing authorities to house those who were vulnerable and not intentionally homeless. It provided the safety net for some of the most disadvantaged and fragile people in our society.
The 1977 Act was reviewed by Michael Heseltine in the early 1980s; it was consolidated by the Conservative Government in 1985; it was reviewed again by Nicholas Ridley and Chris Patten at the DoE in 1989 and at each point it was found to be working broadly satisfactorily. As Chris Patten said in 1989,

1507
"We believe the Act remains important … the present terms of the Act strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the genuinely homeless and others in housing need".
It concluded that current arrangements should, "remain in place".
That comment reflected a wise and humane all-party consensus; until now, when an ugly party conference in many ways made the homeless an easy political target and destroyed that consensus. The result is this Green Paper which asserts that there are grave shortcomings or "a growing belief" that there is abuse; that present methods of allocation are unfair; that homeless families jump the waiting list queue; that emergency homelessness should be met in future only by offering temporary help and that the private rented sector can and will house most families who now present themselves as homeless.
No evidence is offered for the truth of those assertions for the good reason that none exists. The AMA, the ADC and the Association of London Authorities—the major housing authorities—refuted them. Indeed, of 37 Tory shire districts whose responses we know as at 30th March, only one was in favour of the proposals; six had divided views and the remaining 28 were strongly opposed. One of them said,
"It is the opinion of this council that the proposals are generally ill conceived and if adopted they would cause unnecessary trauma to many families and individuals in genuine housing crisis".
That was said by a Tory shire district—Suffolk Coastal, the constituency of the Secretary of State.
The professional institute of housing as of this afternoon continues to denounce the Green Paper, to say nothing of all the Churches, county councils, charities, housing associations, voluntary organisations, CABs, Shelter, MIND, the Spastics Society, Stonham, Age Concern, Barnardos, the Children's Society, the Law Society, who all insist that the proposals will worsen and not resolve homelessness. As the Catholic Housing Aid Society says:
"Legislation must address the long-term needs, not create them",
as it believes these proposals will do.
It is sadly true that homelessness has doubled since the 1970s. More and poorer households are chasing a dwindling supply of socially rented housing. But the Green Paper thinks this is because the 1977 Act encourages homelessness by encouraging families to jump the queue—paragraph 2.7. Really? An increasing problem? Well, no, actually. The Minister has acknowledged that the number of homeless has fallen for the past seven quarters. If the homelessness route is as attractive as the Green Paper asserts, why is a reducing number of families using it? If the problem is diminishing, why change the law? But perhaps there is more abuse—families manipulating the system, as the Green Paper asserts in paragraph 2.9. Well, no, actually. Local authorities now have no duty to house those who intentionally make themselves homeless. If the Government believed that there was abuse they would tighten up the notion of intentionality. They are not proposing to do so precisely because there is not abuse. As the 1989 DoE review said:
"Despite anecdotes to the contrary there is little or no evidence of abuse".
1508
But perhaps the homeless are displacing equally deserving and needy people on the waiting list, as the Green Paper asserts in paragraph 2.6. Well, no, actually, As DoE research shows, only 29 per cent. of all council house allocations go to the statutory homeless. Crucially, the waiting time for a family now on the general waiting list is on average 1.8 years. In 1986 it was 1.7 years—almost exactly the same. If families on the waiting list are being housed at the same pace as always, how then can the statutory homeless be said to be displacing them?
It is of course true that the statutory homeless get: housed more quickly. But that is because their housing need is greater, as is the need of those in sub-standard housing or overcrowded housing or those with medical need. Is that unreasonable? Is the waiting list nonetheless a fairer way of allocating housing, as the Green Paper asserts in paragraph 2.4? Well, no, actually. Not according to the DoE itself, nor the Audit Commission, which for years has wisely advised local authorities not to rely on waiting lists as indicating housing need since, at any one time, under half of those on the list—43 per cent. at the last snapshot—actually want to be housed.
As for waiting lists, if the new proposed waiting list is simply in date order, the less needy will be housed ahead of the more needy. That is wrong. But if there is a points system then the homeless will be near the head of the queue, as now, and the proposals in the Green Paper will be redundant. Will the Minister please tell us what sort of waiting list he has in mind? One that is wrong, or one in which these proposals are redundant?
In any case, three-quarters of those housed as statutorily homeless are already on waiting lists. They are not different sorts of people. As the 1989 DoE study of homeless people concluded:
"In many local authorities, those who are homeless are simply people on the waiting list with nowhere to wait".
Quite so, my Lords, quite so. Why then has homelessness increased? I chaired Norwich housing committee through the 1970s. Comparing the city's homelessness in 1977 before the Act and now, what has changed? Homelessness is still desperately traumatic: the result of a crisis; mortgage repossession; eviction, legal or illegal; marriage break-up. But there are striking differences between then and now. There are new pressures. Homelessness has come for some who have been discharged from long-stay hospitals as part of inadequate care in the community policies.
Sadly, a growing problem is domestic violence which has doubled as a cause of homelessness for women and children in my city. But above all, it is because homeless families are being evicted from the private rented sector. There were only a handful in my city in the 1970s, but now they are over a quarter of all our homeless. They have come from six-month short-hold tenancies and in any dispute with the landlord over rent or repairs, tenants are now powerless to retain their homes past the six months.
As regards housing for rent, together with adequate funding for care in the community, for the support of refuges and the increase in security of tenure in the private sector, these measures will usefully reduce

1509
homelessness. Is that what the Green Paper proposes? On the contrary; it says and does nothing about why people are homeless. It merely cuts the help which they will get. It makes rationing more stringent rather reducing the need for rationing in the first place.
Under these proposals, local authorities will aid not those who will become homeless in order to prevent it, but only those who are already roofless. As the Victorians said, it puts an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff when what is needed is a fence at the top. Any accommodation, however temporary, such as staying with a friend, will rule them out. If they are homeless and get emergency help, that will not mean a permanent roof, but merely temporary shelter. That temporary housing itself will largely be found in the private rented sector which is the very sector, incidentally, which has created much of the homelessness which it is now supposed to resolve.
What are the implications? Perhaps I may cite a very typical family and not an extreme case of hardship. It is a family which I knew in my ward in Norwich. It concerns a middle-aged couple living with their son in work and their daughter at school in a three-bedroomed council house. Their married, elder daughter had to give up her home when she and her husband could not keep up the mortgage. They had nowhere to live. So he went back, temporarily, to live with his parents and she, with their two small children, to hers—the three of them moving into the middle bedroom occupied by her brother in the past.
Separated, the couple's marriage began to crack. Meanwhile her brother had now to sleep on the sitting room sofa. Her mother's nerves began to suffer. The children reverted to bed-wetting; and the teenage daughter started staying out late at night. Stress and misery mounted. We rehoused her and her husband, and both families began to heal. Under these proposals, she would have a roof over her head but we could not rehouse her. Her parents would have to remove her by court order and those families would probably fracture. Does anyone believe that family or friends would help out for a few weeks in future if they then had to go to court to regain possession of their home? Yet if she had left her parents without a court order, she and her children would not in future be helped. What then? Would it be "Cathy Come Home" again?
One of the most chilling things about a chilling Green Paper is that the welfare of children is never considered. Indeed, children are not even mentioned. I believe that the word "child" or "children" appears once in a summary of the 1985 legislation. Their pain is air-brushed out. The Children Act 1989 is blandly ignored. How can we do this?
There are not only children but other vulnerable groups such as those living in refuges and the halfway houses of the Churches and voluntary organisations. They too will be refused help if they have a roof over their heads until they have served their time on the list. Because they cannot move out and on, other frail people in the community cannot in turn be helped and moved in. It all silts up and "care in the community" becomes even more of an empty phrase.
1510
Even if homeless families are eligible for housing, the Green Paper says that should be in the private rented sector. Private renting makes sense for the young, mobile and childless, but most homeless families have children—although they are ignored in the Green Paper. Most homeless families are unemployed and on benefit. Many are from ethnic minorities or have special needs. Private landlords do not want them. We have all seen the adverts that read, "No DSS claimants". As the OPCS 1991 figures show, 10 per cent. of private tenants have experienced harassment.
The private rented sector is not a suitable sector for the vulnerable. It is of poor quality. A fifth of its dwellings are unfit according to the English House Condition Survey. The dwellings are in short supply, with fewer such units than in 1981, and it is hard to enter. It requires several hundred pounds of deposit and rent in advance. Think of a mother in a 'phone booth, Evening Standard in one hand, l0p coins in the other, two children at her feet and having to trail across London not once, not 10 times but perhaps 20 times to find a flat ! Private renting is costly. The average council rent is £30; the average housing association rent is £45 —but the average private rent is £105 per week. That drives up the housing benefit bill, which has already increased by £3 billion in 1992 alone to cover private sector rents, and it exports costs on to the DSS. How then can the DSS cap its budget except by cutting housing benefit for all families?
Worse still, in 40 per cent. of cases rent officers now fix ceilings for housing benefit that are well below the actual rent charged—£29 per week on average in London—and the homeless family on income support has to find the difference somewhere, somehow and does it by getting into arrears or debt, whereupon the family is evicted, again, because private rented tenancies are insecure. The six-month shorthold therefore means, for the most fragile, a revolving door, a cycle of placements which disrupts the family, uproots the children, interrupts their schooling and adds to their misery. A homeless family, already under intense strain, needs stability and security to rebuild their lives. That is what the 1977 Act, consolidated in 1985, offered. This Green Paper will exacerbate their stress and, I fear, turn homeless families into broken families.
At the core of the problem is a shortage of social housing to rent. Selling off a quarter of all council houses on the one hand while simultaneously cutting the building programme, which is down from over 100,000 units a year to around 30,000 a year now, guarantees a housing crisis—a crisis of rationing. The homeless are being forced to compete with the waiting list simply because the supply of social housing has been deliberately reduced.
What is new is that the homeless are blamed for the lack of housing, just as those on invalidity benefit are blamed for being sick and the unemployed are blamed for having no jobs. Having first made social housing scarce, the Government are now seeking to make it harder for the most desperate, the homeless, to gain access to it.

1511
Let me give the last word to the Department of the Environment itself. As the review stated in 1989, referring to those classed as statutory homeless:
"That the number has been increasing is cause for concern, but this is not evidence that the legislation is inadequate or local authorities performance ineffective—rather the reverse".
Quite so. If your Lordships share the view that the DoE held in 1989, you will be asking the DoE in 1994 not to proceed with the proposals in this chilling Green Paper.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for introducing this important and timely debate—timely because we are debating the issue after the responses to the Government's Green Paper and we can properly ask them for a response to those comments. I shall do so tonight. We could talk all night about the issues raised in the Green Paper, but I do not propose to go down that path.
There are two questions at the heart of the debate. The first is to ask the Minister for a commitment that the Government are treating this consultation as a genuine consultation; in other words, that they are listening and will act accordingly. The second is to ask the Government to address the issue of supply—supply because the question of priority, of how to meet demand, would not be an issue if sufficient affordable accommodation were available.
I wondered what the Conservative manifesto for the last general election said. I looked up the index. I thought that the issue of homelessness would be in the section headed "Opportunity for All". That was not so. In fact it comes under the heading "A Brighter Britain". Half of that section is about home ownership, and the part on meeting housing need is largely about improving local authority housing. The issues are important. Of course tenant management and the improvement of stock are vital, but there was little in that quite thick document about affordable housing and homelessness.
The manifesto did, I must acknowledge, have the grace to admit that there is a need to bring into use empty properties owned by central and local government. Your Lordships will have seen the reports in today's press about the research for the Joseph Rowntree Trust on the number of homes standing empty, which in England has grown by a quarter in the past 10 years, while the number of households recognised as homeless has doubled.
Local authorities have reduced their stock of empty houses from 114,000 to 70,000. With 1.9 per cent. of their houses empty, they are described by the report as being England's least wasteful landlords. The number of empty homes in the private sector has risen by over one third. It is well known that central government, with their substantial housing stock, are one of the worst offenders in leaving housing vacant.
I turn now to the Green Paper. Some of the premises upon which it is based are questionable. The noble Baroness referred to the private rented sector. I share the wish that there should be a greater private sector contribution to reducing homelessness, but is that a realistic proposition? May not an upturn in the private
1512
rented sector be due to the current depressed owner-occupier market? There have been huge fluctuations in the property market over the past few years. The private sector is fragile. I do riot believe that we should be building a policy on a sector whose permanence is not proven.
The CML has warned that the very use of the sector as an alternative to mainstream social housing is likely to deter potential investors. That may be for the sad reason that there are negative, stereotyped views about homeless people as tenants, but I believe that its comments are realistic. In any event, rent levels in the private sector are not generally affordable. It caters predominantly for single people and for sharers, not for families.
Shelter, in a typically robust response to the consultation, has expressed concern that homeless families will be directed to a more expensive sector which it says presents two specific problems:
"High rents place homeless families in a vicious poverty trap".
I quote the words of that organisation, and it should know. It continues:
"According to the Department's own figures, more than 80 per cent. of homeless applicants are eligible for housing benefit to meet the rent. In many cases, if someone in the household gets a job the problem of affordability becomes acute as housing benefit is withdrawn at the rate of 65p for each pound of increased income".
I continue to quote from the. Shelter response:
"A second and increasingly common difficulty concerns the restriction of housing benefit by local authorities. Under Regulation 11 … local authorities have a duty to restrict housing benefit if they consider the rent to be unreasonably high, or the accommodation unreasonably large".
It is invariably the tenant who has to meet the shortfall. In 1992–93, 29 per cent. of private tenants whose rents were referred to the rent officer had them reduced for housing benefit purposes.
I refer also to the response of the National Federation of Housing Associations. It refers to forthcoming research which confirms that the match, or mismatch, between supply and housing need varies enormously up and down the country. Its figures suggest that the phenomenon of homeless households dominating access to social housing in some areas stems from regional imbalances between need and supply and not from abuse of the present homelessness system.
It refers also to the supply of private rented dwellings. The consultation paper states that there are 800,000 empty private sector homes and implies that these can be brought into use instead of building new homes. But, as the NFHA states, unfortunately there is no evidence to give confidence in the assumption that substantial numbers of properties will be available. It rightly states that the paper does not address the practical problems that such an initiative would face.
It gives three examples. The first is the relationship between the distribution of dwellings arid the distribution of need. The second is the willingness of private landlords to make the stock available, in particular given anxiety about the future availability of housing benefit. The third is the suitability of stock, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady

1513
Hollis. The results of the English House Conditions Survey suggest that much of the vacant private sector stock is in very poor condition.
The provision of stock as between local authorities and housing associations—which should supply—is not a matter in respect of which I have a particular political hang-up but it is an issue which is riddled with political dogma and quite proper political concern. From the start there have been warnings that the right-to-buy scheme must be accompanied by the replacement of stock. I know that the Government hate local authorities having a capital base and that that is one of the reasons why there have been restrictions on the spending of capital receipts from the sale of local authority housing. But one of the pieces of economic logic that this has produced is that opportunities to create both jobs and houses have been lost.
I turn to the proposals to change the system. The question has been asked about whether there is a need. Many respondents have referred to DoE research. It shows that 74 per cent. of those rehoused as homeless had in any event been on the council's waiting list. In other words, there are not competing groups. Is there evidence of widespread abuse? Is there evidence that different categories of household are treated unfairly? I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of producing that evidence tonight.
The Government's stated objective of ensuring that subsidised housing is equally available to all who genuinely need it is particularly,
"for couples seeking to establish a good home in which to start and raise a family".
That is an admirable objective but, I fear, is in moralistic, judgmental language which I do not find helpful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, it is reminiscent of the debates at last year's Conservative Party conference.
But what will be the effect on families? Proposals that somebody who is asked to leave by his family or friends is no longer automatically entitled to assistance and legislation which requires a court order to prove that family members cannot live together are likely to be divisive and will hardly unite members of a family. In the stressful situations which underlie those applications, support and keeping the family together may actually mean helping members of the family to live in separate accommodation.
There have been many comments about the need to consider housing in the broader social context. It is quite extraordinary that there is no mention in the paper of the community care legislation or the Children Act which introduced powers and duties to keep families together and to avoid children being taken into care. It does not require a great deal of imagination to see the effect if applicants must be literally roofless before they can qualify.
What about the victims of domestic violence? My noble friend Lord Russell will refer to refuges for women and their children who are such victims. It must be obvious that refuges, which are already full, will not be able to assist future applicants if there is no turnover of their own residents.
1514
What about those who are forced to sleep rough? I spoke today to Shelter Nightline and it tells me that the demand has increased substantially. Indeed, over the past week it has been unable to find accommodation for 30 people, compared with 20 in the whole of February.
The purpose of the Government's rough sleepers initiative was to make it unnecessary to sleep rough in London. The agencies have seen the problems coming with the closure of cold weather hostels and the RSI hostel closures without permanent accommodation coming on stream. I take this opportunity to ask the Government to acknowledge the need for an urgent review of that initiative.
I make a personal plea to the Government that they should consider reviewing their use of language. I find "rough sleepers" a most distasteful term. They are, first, people, and, secondly, they are people who find themselves sleeping rough.
Removing the "cost" of homelessness and replacing it with a substantial burden through social services provision will not solve the desperate problems which are experienced in many parts of the country. The detailed proposals in the paper have provoked many expert, detailed and thoughtful responses. I may have missed those which support the paper. No doubt the Minister will tell us if there is support. By that I mean general support and not merely support for some of the more narrow proposals such as the amalgamation of the local authority and housing association waiting lists. In many places that is dealt with quite separately and those agencies do not need to be told how to behave by the Government. The Government have had since the middle of March to consider those responses and by now they will certainly know the balance of the reaction.
In summary, I believe that these proposals will do nothing to lessen the socially and emotionally damaging reality of homelessness for many thousands of people. We do not need changes in definitions or in responsibilities; we need a change in attitude towards social housing. The proposals will deprive homeless people of the existing statutory guarantee of a secure, affordable home. They do not provide an adequate safety net for people in acute housing need. Little will be gained by introducing a system which may bring more perceived fairness to the allocations process if that in itself undermines the principle of providing homes for vulnerable people.
It must be said that this is yet another centralising measure by a Government who cannot bear to allow local discretion, even by local authorities run by members of their own party. The Government seek to justify their proposals by claiming that homeless people are jumping the queue and being housed ahead of families on the waiting list who are in worse conditions. It ill becomes the Government to blame the queuers; they should shorten the queue. Again, I ask the Government to show that they do know the meaning of consultation and that they are mature enough to acknowledge that the paper is misconceived and to thank the respondents for demonstrating that that is so. Otherwise, this will be a very sad memorial to the late Stephen Ross, so soon after his death. As the noble

1515
Baroness said—and, indeed, as other speakers will say —his Bill was a landmark in dealing with the problems of homelessness. It should not be overturned in the way proposed.
11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, my immediate reaction to the consultation paper can be summed up in the pithy phrase of an old Scottish friend of ours who talks about people "improving worse". That is exactly how I should like to summarise it. I feel compelled to voice something of the widespread and universal concern about the proposals which I have been picking up all over my own diocese and throughout the country.
I know that that concern is felt by the Churches and Church bodies overwhelmingly and also by secular voluntary bodies engaged in seeking to help the homeless families and, above all, the children. I can assure Her Majesty's Government that anyone involved with homeless families would want to make a plea on their behalf to reconsider the proposals radically and totally. I genuinely believe that they would represent a serious backward step for a civilised, humane society to make.
Of course, one must welcome the aim of a decent home within the reach of every family and, I would add, within the reach of every household. I recognise a benign intention here and there, amidst what seems otherwise to be a remote and forbidding document, balancing the demands of groups of people, adjudicating between the needs of households in allocating a sadly scarce resource and trying to do so by ingenious rejigging of the problem and the changing of definitions at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
That is not the way forward. The only way, as has already been said, is by ensuring an adequate supply of decent, affordable housing to everyone. Her Majesty's Government supported the Housing Corporation in its reconstruction of new dwellings and in the rehabilitation of run-down properties. However, they continue to cut the level of the housing grant. That, itself, limits the ability of housing associations to provide. I have seen evidence of that only recently. There is no sign of property owners responding to the new 1988 Housing Act provisions. Even if they do, good reasons have already been stated—to which I could certainly add—for us not putting our faith in the private sector. I appeal to the Government to allow councils to build new homes for rent, especially where the demand for such housing is high.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 is, indeed, a landmark for all of us who are concerned about the situation. We look back on it, as other speakers have said, as an Act which established a framework which needs developing and which can only really be consolidated by the provision of new stock and an opening up of more houses to people.
It is disingenuous of the paper to try to deny the desperate need actually to build new homes, referring to the environment in that rather mealy-mouthed way, or to resort to a costly, often arbitrary and exploitative private
1516
sector. I have seen the suffering of families closely at first hand among private landlords. Homelessness has tripled since 1977. We are considering vulnerable and needy families and children, some of whom I personally know.
Research shows the importance for children to have a stable setting. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, there is very little reference to children in the document. That is part of its strange remoteness which, as I said, I found quite forbidding and daunting. There is no hint of the shattering of relationships, the shifting of schooling and the stress on parents to which many such provisions or limitations—for that is what is really involved—would lead. The proposals would have the opposite effect to what one might hope.
Families claiming to be homeless will now have to wait while inquiries are made. What happens while that is going on? That is not stated. Accommodation may well be provided for a limited time only. A drastic sense of insecurity comes through the pages of the document. There is no suggestion that temporary accommodation will be provided until permanent accommodation is secured, for instance, and I find the reference to a fixed period or limit sinister. The document seems to evoke a spectre of delays leaving families with children roofless for one or more nights and a vision of children sleeping on the streets or being admitted to local authority care. If this seems over-dramatic or exaggerated, I can only say that that is the impression which comes through the lines of the document.
Meanwhile it is difficult for any local authority to establish a need quickly enough or to assess the likely stress that will be experienced by families or friends in the search for permanent accommodation, or to assess how easy it will be for families to find permanent accommodation. We shall be confronted with private rented, costly, poor quality provision and more people will be dependent upon housing benefit. Above all, there is no real, strong, central emphasis on a permanent home with built-in safeguards. Above all, there is no suggestion that people will be kept in the locality where they need to be, or that children will not be torn from their families, their schooling, their doctor, the health service or their relationships. No overriding family needs have been taken into account in this document. The proposals would seem to deny homeless families in many places any access to permanent accommodation. The proposals seem to achieve the opposite of what they set out to achieve in that they set up the homeless in a most unhelpful way to compete with couples seeking to establish first homes.
I can see our hostels and temporary provision for families —I am personally involved with that provision —silting up in exactly the same way as has been described, because once families have any kind of accommodation provided they cease to be the responsibility of the local authority. Indeed there is a kind of encouragement to local authorities to abdicate responsibility for homeless families. The duty of local authorities in this regard is restricted to providing temporary short-term accommodation or to relying upon an ordinary waiting list which may not be accessible to many of the urgent homeless.

1517
The views that I have voiced are shared by many others. There is a mistaken assumption that demand for new lettings can be met almost exclusively from the private sector. Many of us are beginning to fear for the state of the family in the most vulnerable sectors of our community where it is subject to so much disruption. The Rowntree Foundation has, in addition to examining housing issues, demonstrated how children whose families undergo disruption and changes of the kind that I have described are suffering from health problems and a lack of self-esteem. They suffer from all kinds of difficulties. The Children's Society has a mass of evidence of dreadful bedsitters, rented accommodation, disgusting conditions and unsuitable landlords. A picture comes to mind of a shifting and vulnerable section of our population which needs to be cared for in a different way. The document concentrates too much on toughening criteria and on reducing such slender rights as people have in this area. The proposals seem to address the problem from a bland distance and treat the people concerned as if they were not part of society and as if they were a different race. Surely we long for a society in Britain in which the least matter the most and in which those most at risk are those whom we specially care for and for a society in which the children in greatest need will be allocated the greatest resources. I can see no evidence of a plan for such a society in this document.
Housing runs through society like a luminous thread revealing all its injustices, hurts, sorrows and needs in their darkest form. The only way to begin to tackle this problem is not to alter definitions and rules in a way which leads more human beings to be exposed to insecurity and suffering, but to provide substantial help to build affordable and accessible homes and so to begin to build for a really better and brighter future for us all. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to withdraw this paper and to think this matter right through again from the beginning.
11.09 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is to be congratulated on asking this most important Question today.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, while acknowledging the legitimate claims of statutory homeless to permanent accommodation, is nevertheless aware of the very real hardship faced by other groups. One of the most acute needs is that of single homeless people, who have no entitlement to accommodation. The CAB does not consider that the proposals outlined in the consultation paper will ensure fairer access to local authority or housing association tenancies. The present homelessness legislation seems already to provide stringent tests which ensure that only households in greatest need have a priority claim on permanent social housing. These include households with children, elderly or otherwise vulnerable people.
It has been found that single people in rural areas as well as in towns find that they are unable to overcome the difficulties of obtaining affordable rented accommodation in the private sector. This apparently has
1518
recently been exacerbated by difficulties faced by landlords to obtain insurance for properties let to claimants. Would the Minister not agree that there is something wrong here, and perhaps it should be looked into? Otherwise surely the accommodation situation will get worse rather than better.
Centrepoint, the charity for housing young people at risk, says that around 62 per cent. of the young people it assists come direct from their families, other relatives or friends. One-third come from friends alone. Young people move from place to place until they have exhausted all their options. The provision of short-term assistance by friends and other relatives provides a valuable safety net for young people. If the proposals in the consultation paper are implemented to eliminate young people evicted by their family there will be a real danger that they will fall through the safety net.
One other point of concern is the amount of discretion that would be given to local authorities. Centrepoint has researched into how the Children Act was being implemented and found that because of the discretionary nature of the Act some local authorities were not carrying out their duties to assist children in need. It appears that the majority of homeless young people, including care leavers, were not being provided with accommodation. I wonder why this is happening when local authorities have a statutory duty to provide such assistance under the Children Act 1989. Surely homeless young people, and particularly those very vulnerable young people who have left care, are a priority need. Can the Minister say how the Government plan to ensure that local authorities tend to the needs of these very vulnerable young people?
MENCAP is very concerned that many people assume that people with learning disabilities or mental handicap are looked after under the community care heading. I wish I could be confident of that. Perhaps the Minister could tell me that I can be.
Many people who suffer from learning disabilities live at home with their families. They therefore, by definition, have a home. Community care will provide residential homes for those with intensive support needs often only when parents become ill or die and there is a crisis. But what happens to those whose parents have become old and tired but are still trying to manage? Their son or daughter could best be provided for by their own tenancy, with their parents' continued interest and some professional support. It would appear that most community care priority lists will exclude these people as not being in an immediate crisis. They will not be on a housing list, but they are homeless in the sense of not having a home appropriate to their needs but having a roof over their heads. Therefore they would seem to fail the new test. If they should pass the new test, since they are dependent but not highly dependent, they seem to face the prospect of many short-term arrangements rather than a permanent home, which could add to their problems.
Could the Minister say in respect of people with learning disabilities who will need a home of their own one day, whether they should be put on the housing waiting list as soon as they leave school? If he is unable to answer this tonight perhaps he would write to me.

1519
This is the International Year of the Family and attention is focused on policies to promote family life. The first step towards this is surely as permanent a home as possible so that the children will not have the stress of moving schools, having to make new friends, and the family will still have the same social work support and other welfare provision. Let us hope that this International Year of the Family will bring about less homelessness and a more stable family life.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in a civilised society, homelessness is a sign of failure and so I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hollis for alerting me to the Government's consultation paper that we are discussing this evening. Sadly and surprisingly, the paper proposes a radical watering down of the existing homelessness legislation.
For example, it suggests that the so-called permanent housing duty owed to those who are homeless and in priority need should he restricted to merely securing accommodation for a limited period. It recommends that even this temporary duty should only be offered to those without any form of current temporary accommodation whatsoever, and only if, in the local authority's view, there is no suitable alternative accommodation available in the region.
The consultation paper also proposes to water down the emergency, or interim, housing duty. The new temporary duty will operate only after a local authority has made all its inquiries and decided whether an applicant meets all the criteria. And, in the case of someone who has been asked to leave by family or friends, an authority might be entitled to refuse any help until it is presented with a possession order.
These are the major changes recommended in the consultation paper. According to the paper, they are justified because the homelessness legislation creates,
"a perverse incentive for people to have themselves accepted by a local authority as homeless".
In short, the statutory homeless are said to be jumping the housing queue. As my noble friend Lady Hollis said, where is the evidence for that? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Nowhere in the document is there any evidence to support this claim. Indeed, as is so often the case with this Government, recent research conducted by their own officials suggests quite the opposite conclusion.
Routes into Local Authority Housing is a study of local authority waiting lists and new tenancies published by the Department of the Environment at the same time as the consultation paper. This study shows that those facing the more urgent and desperate housing needs are re-housed more rapidly by local authorities, whether or not they are homeless. Indeed, there is some evidence in this research that becoming homeless is far from being the fast track to an ideal council home that the Government allege.
The pressure on local authority housing is well known. The number of secure lettings available to new tenants has declined over the past decade. On the other hand, the number of households accepted as homeless has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Yet, in 1992–93, as other noble Lords have mentioned, only 29
1520
per cent. of secure local authority lets were allocated to the homeless, with the remainder going to waiting list and transfer applicants.
So it does not follow that the homeless are automatically housed ahead of those on the waiting list. In 1990, about 140,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities, and only half were re-housed in secure lets. Finding accommodation for only half the households accepted as homeless hardly supports the claim that those on the waiting list in urgent need but not homeless are being pushed behind the homeless in the queue.
The research also shows another major reason why those in more urgent and desperate circumstances are likely to be re-housed more rapidly. They are less choosy about where they are prepared to live and more likely to accept an offer. Of those on the waiting list who described their need as urgent, six out of 10 were prepared to live almost anywhere, compared with two out of every 10 of those who were looking to be housed in the future. Of those who were made an offer, people with a more urgent need were four times more likely to accept it than people with a less urgent need. That distorts the statistics.
The Government's own research shows, then, that their claims about queue jumping are not supported by the facts. The proposals in the consultation paper therefore have little to do with ensuring fairer access to local authority and housing association homes. If they had, they would look honestly at the root cause of the problem, which is the demonstrable need for decent, affordable housing. Instead, the Government blame the victims, who are the homeless, and continue their prejudiced attack on local authority housing.
Finally, the paper makes brief reference in paragraph 2.3 to the environment, and implies that building too many public and housing association dwellings could use up too much of our scarce natural resources. It is a measure of the uneven balance of the paper that it is careful not to apply this argument to the private sector also. Present and future generations will certainly not thank us if we fail to devote enough of our scarce natural resources to producing enough dwellings.
I hope that the Minister will recycle the consultation paper, and that a new version will emerge that takes account of the Government's own research and the comments and proposals that have been made in this debate.
11.21 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for introducing this topic I do not merely make the conventional utterance. I am particularly grateful to her for starting a debate on a subject on which one was needed very badly indeed.
I remember when I was in my twenties reading an interview with my late noble friend Lord Grimond. He said that he had made it his policy never to express a stronger feeling on any issue than he actually had. That struck me as a good principle, and I have tried to follow it. But sometimes—and this is an extreme example—I

1521
have found it much more difficult to pretend to have an opinion less strong than I actually do for the sake of the decencies of debate.
This is a particularly back-handed tribute to my late noble friend Lord Ross of Newport. The matter has not been more than touched on so far, but it would also be disastrous to the future of the growing movement for women's refuges. I put this issue first because it is one that I think I can discuss on an all-party basis. It is a subject on which I have had much kindness and understanding from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who was responsible for it before her. Refuges are vital, not only for the safety of women who are victims of domestic violence but also to their chances of rehabilitation, of getting back into normal life and regular employment.
I do not think that there is any particular desire in these proposals to put an end to women's refuges. The Government were simply thinking about something else. But the whole thrust of the proposals, and a lot of particular paragraphs, are entirely incompatible with the nature and purpose of women's refuges. I refer in particular to paragraph 10.1, which requires a local connection. I understand the point of that connection in normal homelessness. But it is essential to a woman who is fleeing from domestic violence that she should go where she cannot be pursued or recognised. That means that to be safe she must be outside her local authority area. Since local authorities are very resistant to housing people from outside their area, it is particularly important that there should be a specific duty to women in that situation and indeed to ensuring the provision of refuges within the area.
There must also be an exemption from paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3 about people not being homeless if they are required to leave. If they are required to leave at the end of a boot, bleeding severely, one cannot regard that framework as applicable.
There is a real need for an exemption from paragraph 5.2, which states that the local authority has no duty until an assessment has been carried out. When it happens—as it has done in the local refuge in the area from which I come —that a woman arrives in her nightdress at three o'clock in the morning bleeding severely, one cannot ask her to wait while an assessment is carried out. Something has to be done.
There should also be an exemption from paragraph 3.4, which excludes refugees. I do not believe that sending back a woman in that situation is the kind of thing that one should do to anyone whatsoever.
There also has to be an exemption for women's refuges from paragraph 6.1, which states that the homeless are entitled to temporary accommodation only. The danger of silting up has already been touched on. But it is also true that women who have to leave their area, contacts or any friends through whom a vengeful husband might track them lose their whole support systems. If they are to get back into regular life, they need permanent accommodation. I shall confine myself to asking the Government whether they will consult
1522
those in the Home Office who are responsible for women's refuges and ask them what they think about the impact of these proposals on refugees.
However, I cannot speak any more warmly of the proposals as a whole. In fact, they have some claim to be regarded as the worst government proposals since the poll tax. That is not just because of their inhumanity; it is also because of their immense cost, most of which will fall, as usual, on the unfortunate Department of Social Security. People know that I am prepared to spend public money for good reason. But to one who regards public money as water in the desert, it is offensive to see it run into the sand.
What has happened is that there has been a diminution of supply. Since 1981, the amount of family-size rented social housing has diminished by 21 per cent. As there is a falling supply, inevitably an increased share of what there is goes to the homeless. It is very much as though on Thursdays we had only two Starred Questions instead of four. The resentment against whoever gets the topical Question would be rather greater than it is. But the problem would not be caused by the topical Question. It would be caused by the reduction in the number of untopical questions.
In fact, those on the waiting list and the homeless are not altogether different groups. Some 74 per cent. of those homeless in 1989 had been on the waiting list. In 1979, the Department of the Environment described the homeless as,
"simply people on the waiting list with nowhere to wait".
In 1989, the Department of the Environment was not in the hands of raging Left-wingers. It is a good illustration of how difficult it is for this Government to go on with the line of "no turning back". If one goes on to the Right from the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale one tends to go out of sight.
The difference is not that extreme. Those who are homeless take, on average, 0.7 years to obtain permanent housing, compared with 1.2 years for those who are simply on the waiting list. And the waiting list is not just a queue; it is and has always been a points system. In that context I do not believe that that difference is unreasonable.
The Department of the Environment's press release said that homelessness was becoming increasingly "attractive". If I were redrafting the test for mental illness for incapacity benefits, I might well include in it the question, "Do you find homelessness attractive?" If the answer were "Yes", I would regard that as much better evidence of mental illness than can be obtained from many of the questions that are asked. This really is the doctrine of perverse incentive taking off into Cloud-cuckoo-land. One cannot help wondering whether they reduced criminal injuries compensation because they were afraid that it was a perverse incentive to get oneself raped or mugged.
It is proposed to deal with the problem by cutting out the homeless from the waiting lists for permanent accommodation. It is a little like 1066 and All That's description of the Zulu war. Cause: Zulus; Zulus exterminated: peace with Zulus. In using that example I must say that I hope that history is not about to repeat itself.

1523
It leaves us also with the question of what happens to the entitlement to permanent accommodation of the 74 per cent. of the homeless who were on the waiting list. If, because they have become homeless, they are to be deprived of the priority to permanent accommodation that they had beforehand, it really will be adding injury to Insult. I hope that that is not the intention of the proposals.
The redefinition of "homelessness" is also rather curious. Anyone who is asked to leave by friends or family will now not be classed as homeless. That really is a perverse incentive. Suppose when I am 90 and am in a small flat, one of my sons becomes repossessed and asks me for shelter. If I give it to him I will permanently deprive him of his chance of being rehoused. I am being put under a perverse incentive to turn him away. Is that the way to keep families together? I cannot see it.
Under paragraph 8.3 the local authority is asked whether the people involved could continue to live together without "undue strain". I wonder whether they have any idea what they are taking on. Domestic hatred is usually concentrated on the most apparently irrational things. I do not see how anybody can come in from outside and assess it without going away with at best a bloody nose. I quoted that last night to my wife, who said that if anyone were to come to her and ask her such questions, she would slam the door in their face.
That provokes me to ask, will there be any duty to co-operate with the local authority when it turns up attempting to make this assessment? Nothing like this has been tried since the Church courts before the Civil War when they used to deal with judicial separation cases. It left us with a case like the one in which it was said that the couple were so unhappy that nothing but the power of religion could make them live as man and wife. The local authority is not equipped with the power of religion. It is being put into a situation with which it really cannot cope, and if that paragraph is not cut out, there will be murder committed.
We are told also that there is to be no duty until the local authority has carried out an assessment. That reminds me of the Englishman who dropped his hat down a well. He arranged for an Irishman who was with him to hold on to the top of the well; a Welshman should hold on to the Irishman; the Englishman should hold on to the Welshman and he could just reach the hat. But just as he reached for it, the Irishman exclaimed, "Hold on nah while I spit on me hands". So, of course, they all ended at the bottom of the well. What are people going to do while this assessment is being carried out? They will have to go somewhere else, and what they do there may not be honest. If this goes ahead the Government may find themselves labelled "Fagin's factor" and "pimp's pander". Those are not enviable titles. The Government really should think twice before seeking them.
Under paragraphs 6.1 and 6.6 of the Green Paper we are told that accommodation for the homeless shall be temporary only and at the same time that the duty could recur. The homeless are being made into sort of Flying Dutchmen. They are being perpetually recycled. This is where the cost comes in, and most of it will fall on the Department of Social Security. It costs on average
1524
£14.24 a week more in housing benefit to house privately than with the local authority. It is a lot harder to get a job from temporary accommodation, especially out of your own area, so there will be another large addition to the bill for income support. We do not need to increase that bill. There will also be a considerable addition to ill health, which is common in temporary accommodation. The Crisis survey this Christmas, reported in the Independent on 8th March, found an alarming increase in TB. In fact among the homeless it was found to be nearly 200 times more prevalent than in the general population. A representative of the Public Health Laboratory Service said:
"There is a danger of it becoming epidemic in hostel conditions. Hostels with poor ventilation create conditions which are absolutely right for transmitting the disease, as we have seen in New York".
TB is an expensive illness. The Government are pickling another rod for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's back. I really do not think he needs any more.
The local authority is being given a discretion which creates a conflict of interest. The local authority is under very severe pressure because of shortage of housing, so it is being given a discretion which it has every incentive to use against the claimant. That is likely to lead to more judicial review; and that means more cost. It will cause a great deal of difficulty for schooling. A succession of temporary placements is very hard to combine with regular schooling. In fact, before the Government go ahead, I really would advise them to read the famous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on the cycle of deprivation. I have not always agreed 'with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, but he is a person whose ideas one has to take seriously. On this occasion, I very much hope that the Government will take those ideas seriously.
But what is to be done instead? Obviously we must look to supply. This is not only a matter of building —on that I do agree with the Government. Et is a matter perhaps of help with repairs; it is a matter of help with deposits; it is a matter of trying to get housing benefit to cover the whole of the rent, because if it does not, as many of us have explained, one simply sends the Flying Dutchman round the cycle again.
I wrote to Sir George Young just after Christmas to ask whether he would consider the proposal in the Shelter/NACAB report to allow a level of housing benefit to be fixed and a certificate to be given before a tenancy begins. That would suit the landlord. He would know what he was getting. It would suit the tenant. It would give him security. But the reply I received was as follows:
"An important principle of the deregulation measures introduced in the Housing Act 1988 is that a landlord and tenant should be free to negotiate the terms and rent of the tenancy without interference. Any prior rent fixing might be interpreted as leading the market".
So, for the sake of an abstract principle, they are inflicting hardship on both parties. It makes me understand how my father felt in 1920 when he met Lenin and asked him why, in the middle of a famine, he did not allow catching fish in the river Moskva. Lenin

1525
said that he feared that this might encourage private enterprise. It is that same hard, ideological note that I hear here.
I do not usually go in for rhetoric, but these proposals have the breadth of vision of a rhinoceros, the sense of direction of a lemming, the perception of an ostrich and the financial prudence of Lambeth Borough Council and I hope we hear no more of them.
11.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, despite the hour, this has proved a welcome opportunity to give this important and very topical subject our attention and we have had interesting contributions from all parts of the Chamber. There is much for the Government to reflect on here.
The Government are clear that the prime responsibility for establishing and maintaining a home rests with the individual or family concerned. The role of the state is to assist in this, not to lead. We want to encourage owner occupation wherever it is appropriate. Where renting is the proper solution, we want to make best use of both the public and private sector to meet the housing needs of different sections of the community.
From this flows the central theme of our proposals. It is the introduction of a fairer system of access to local authority and housing association tenancies. Were it not for this objective, we would not trouble to make these proposals. And it is from this objective that there follows the need to alter the present homelessness legislation so that it ceases to be a fast track into council and housing association tenancies. So while much of the debate has been about homelessness and how the homeless would fare under our proposals, we have to see that in the context of the proposals as a whole.
Local authorities have two functions in the provision of housing. One is as provider of last resort. The other is of gatekeeper for the queue seeking a long-term tenancy in social housing. Under the present régime these proposals have become confused. There is no good reason why those who are found to be statutorily homeless within the meaning of present legislation and who are then given temporary but adequate housing should also have priority in access to social housing ahead of others who may be living in more difficult conditions.
Consider the case of two families living in similar rented accommodation who find that their landlord is seeking repossession. On the one hand, family A go straight to the local authority and apply for assistance under the homelessness legislation. They are initially given temporary accommodation in a private rented sector property found for them by the local authority and then as soon as possible they are given the tenancy for life of a council or housing association property. Family B, on the other hand, prefer to try to fend for themselves if possible. They find a property in the private rented sector, possibly no different to that used by family A, on a temporary basis, and they put their name on a waiting list—or indeed several waiting lists in the locality—for local authority or housing association tenancies. But it is
1526
in the nature of the present system that they can only get re-housed after family A has been offered accommodation. Can this really be right?
By proposing to break the existing link between assisting homeless people and the allocation of tenancies for life, we are proposing a system that is fairer for everyone. We are not turning our backs on homeless people. Throughout the consultation period Ministers have made it quite clear that we are committed to ensuring that there will continue to be a full safety net for families and vulnerable people that ensures accommodation would be available to those who have lost their home through no fault of their own. I hope that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, understands that point. There is certainly no question of families being split up or of children having to sleep on the streets. I make that point strongly to the right reverend Prelate. Your Lordships have our assurance on that. I hope that we will have no more alarmist propaganda on this subject.
Equally, there is no question of families being given only very short-term or insecure accommodation when an authority has a duty towards them. We have not yet reached any conclusion on how a new duty to secure accommodation might be formulated, but I can assure your Lordships that we envisage that authorities would be able to secure accommodation that provides a settled home; wherever possible the family would be able to stay there until a housing association or council house vacancy came up through the waiting list.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I realise that it is late at night. However, in the light of what he has said and given his guarantees about families not being on the streets, will he explain what will happen to a family who have become homeless but when the local authority's responsibility does not start until its inquiries have been completed and those inquiries take a week? What happens in the meanwhile?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is late at night and I shall be coming to that subject a little later. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said; perhaps she will listen carefully to what I shall say during the course of my speech.
The Government feel that much of the opposition to these proposals has been misplaced. We fully respect the sincere intentions and concerns of many of those (both within this House and elsewhere) who espouse the cause of the homeless. But I have to say that there are times when their commitment to the status quo has blinded them to the opportunities that our proposals present and has led them to put the most perverse construction possible on their possible effects.
Part of the way forward lies in devoting more effort to preventive measures. Early advice or assistance in finding alternative accommodation can prevent what is a housing difficulty from becoming a housing crisis. Advisory services currently tend to receive a low priority when local authorities consider how to deploy their resources. Yet timely advice can be very cost-effective in preventing a situation which might

1527
otherwise emerge as a homelessness case, with all the cost to the authority and trauma to the household that can be involved.
We want to make best use of the whole stock of rented accommodation in meeting housing needs. For many people, particularly those on low incomes, who expect to rent accommodation for the long term, a local authority or housing association tenancy may well be the best answer when it becomes available. But the private rented sector also has an important role to play, particularly for people just starting a home of their own or while waiting their turn on the waiting list. It is quite wrong to equate the council sector with a high quality and the private sector with low —despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says. Much of the property available currently used as temporary accommodation in the private rented sector is of at least as good a quality as the accommodation to which people subsequently move in council or housing association sectors. There are over 700,000 empty properties in the private sector, and we do ourselves a disservice if we fail to make better use of them wherever possible.
I turn now to some of the points that have been raised this evening. I realise that they are important points and I shall be as selective as I can in picking them out. I shall write to your Lordships on any points that I have not been able to cover this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked, "What is the evidence? Why are you bothering to do this? Why do we have these proposals?" Let us be clear. We are not talking about inefficiency or failure on the part of local authority staff; we are talking about the constraints of working with a system that was designed in 1977 to meet a real but specific need which has now come to dominate a substantial proportion of the allocation of social housing. Over the 14 years since 1979, the number of homelessness acceptances has risen from 55,000 to 134,000, while the number of new lettings has remained broadly the same. It takes someone twice as long to get rehoused through the waiting list compared to someone rehoused through the homelessness route. Many people on the waiting list never get rehoused. Indeed, there are some areas in which it is impossible to get rehoused unless the homeless route is used. We want to introduce a better balance and give local authorities more scope for meeting real housing need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said also, "Why not build more social housing?" Again, let us be clear. The consultation paper is about fairness in the allocation of social housing, not about how much housing there should be. Our main housing policy is that a decent home should be within the reach of every family and we are sponsoring a substantial house building programme.
The Housing Corporation expects that in the three years ending March 1995 housing associations will have built 178,000 new dwellings—25,000 more than we promised in our 1992 manifesto. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also said that everyone opposes the reform proposals, but the reform proposals have been welcomed by the London Boroughs Association whose members include some of the most hard-pressed local
1528
housing authorities. A number of commentators are so entrenched in the present system that they cannot stand back and consider dispassionately our reform proposals.
The noble Baroness concentrated on homelessness reforms, but our consultation paper also contains proposals aimed at preventing homelessness. I hope that we all support that objective. The paper makes proposals for improving the housing waiting list system, which I think that the noble Baroness acknowledged does not operate optimally at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the private rented sector will not be able to rise to the occasion. The consultation paper makes it clear that: accommodation in the private rented sector must be, suitable: the 700,000 empty private sector properties are a huge waste of resources, and the Government have a range of initiatives to bring those back into use, such as housing associations, managing agents and the flats-over-shops programme. Certainly the number of private sector tenancies has risen by 10 per cent. in the five years since the Government introduced the: deregulation of tenancies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, "Well, hostels will fill up". Of course we are alive to the good work carried out by hostels and refuges. We are aware: of the special position of refuges and other types of short-stay hostel, and of the importance of move-on accommodation for their clients. We do not see our proposals as changing the rule for this kind of accommodation. We are spending £180 million over six years on the rough sleepers' initiative in central London. The initiative will have provided over 3,000 units of permanent accommodation for people who would otherwise sleep rough in central London, and it has helped thousands of individuals to start a new life away from the streets.
A count by voluntary sector agencies last November found fewer than 300 rough sleepers in central London compared with 2,000 to: 3,000 before the initiative began. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry said that the proposals will make things worse and cause families to move from one set of temporary accommodation to another. Our aim is to make better use of the existing stock. "Temporary accommodation" is a misleading term. Many homeless households would prefer to have the tenancy of a private sector house with a garden rather than a high rise local authority flat.
The initial six-month minimum of an assured shorthold tenancy will often in practice be extended to several years, and during that period the family will gain priority on the waiting list. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, "What about young people?" We can assure the noble Lady that the proposals in the consultation paper will not disturb present arrangements which cater for such people under the Children Act 1989. The noble Lady went on to ask about people with learning difficulties. That is a matter which touches on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health as well as of my own department. I can assure the noble Lady that I shall write to her about whether school leavers with learning difficulties should go on the housing waiting list.

1529
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned the number of secure dwellings and said that it has declined during the past 10 years. However, taking together the new lettings of local authorities and housing associations, the combined total has risen slightly during the past 10 years, from 301,000 in 1982–83 to 321,000 in 1992–93.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of victims of domestic violence. Certainly we recognise the importance of present provisions for such victims. We assure the noble Earl that the proposals will continue to ensure suitable settled accommodation for victims of domestic violence. We are discussing proposals with colleagues in the Home Office and elsewhere.
I recognise and respect the genuine concern for the homeless and other less fortunate members of the community that has been expressed tonight. I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring those noble Lords who have spoken that we have no intention of allowing the interests of people who really need assistance with accommodation to be adversely affected. And I hope that I have shown how we hope the new proposals will
1530
ensure the fairer distribution of what people should properly regard as a valuable and cherished asset; the tenancy of a council or housing association property.
We have just completed a major consultation exercise. Ministers are still considering the 9,000-plus responses we have received and are reflecting on the points that they make. I hope noble Lords will understand that this is the reason why on a number of points I have been unable to give the detailed response that some might have wished. The discussion that we have had today gives us further food for thought. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this is genuine consultation. Several of the specific lines for modifying the proposals suggested by noble Lords deserve close consideration. We shall certainly be studying the report of this debate with interest.
I cannot at this moment say when the Government will announce their reaction to the responses that we have received but I can assure your Lordships that when we do it will take full account of the interesting and topical discussion that we have had today.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.

  MAGISTRATES" COURTS SERVICE INSPECTORATE: ANNUAL REPORT
  MAGISTRATES" COURTS SERVICE INSPECTORATE: ANNUAL REPORT
  PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE: PEDESTRIANISATION AND THE DISABLED
  PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE: PEDESTRIANISATION AND THE DISABLED
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND VOLUNTARY SECTOR BUDGET
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND VOLUNTARY SECTOR BUDGET
  SHEEP DIP USERS: HEALTH SURVEILLANCE
  SHEEP DIP USERS: HEALTH SURVEILLANCE
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION SECONDMENTS
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION SECONDMENTS
  PARAQUAT
  PARAQUAT
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  COAL PRIVATISATION: PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM
  COAL PRIVATISATION: PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM
  DRIVING LICENCE APPLICATION: DATE OF BIRTH REQUIREMENT
  DRIVING LICENCE APPLICATION: DATE OF BIRTH REQUIREMENT
  SHIPPING: BRITISH OPEN REGISTER PROPOSAL
  SHIPPING: BRITISH OPEN REGISTER PROPOSAL
  PRALIDOXIME
  PRALIDOXIME
  FOURTEEN YEAR-OLDS: RECONVICTION FOLLOWING DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY
  FOURTEEN YEAR-OLDS: RECONVICTION FOLLOWING DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ACCESS
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ACCESS
  ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT CONVENTION
  ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT CONVENTION
  CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT CONVENTION
  CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT CONVENTION
  THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION
  THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION
  COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS: VISA PROPOSAL
  COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS: VISA PROPOSAL
  LIFE IMPRISONMENT
  LIFE IMPRISONMENT
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  MAFF ANIMAL HEALTH OFFICE: NANCEKUKE
  MAFF ANIMAL HEALTH OFFICE: NANCEKUKE
  SHEEP DIP "FLU
  SHEEP DIP "FLU
  ORGANOPHOSPHATES: TOXICITY RESEARCH
  ORGANOPHOSPHATES: TOXICITY RESEARCH