Sitting of 13 April 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of George Robert Cryer, esquire, Member for Bradford, South, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.
  NEW WRIT
  For Rotherham constituency, in the room of Jimmy Boyce, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Derek Foster.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    National Consumer Council
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the impact on consumer advisory services of his reduction in the grant of the National Consumer Council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am confident that the National Consumer Council will continue to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers as a whole.
    Mr. Jones: How can the Minister justify that statement after making a cut in the grant to the National Consumer Council? When will he restore that cut to protect consumers in this country?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the National Consumer Council has done well over the years with funding increases, from some £0.32 million in 1975-76 to £2.47 million in 1994-95—an increase of some 80 per cent. in real terms. I think that that shows the Government's commitment to the National Consumer Council.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while consumer bodies such as the National Consumer Council have a role to play, consumers' interests are best served by maximising competition within free and open markets? Is that not what the Government have been achieving over the past 15 years through the rigorous use of competition policies and, most important, by privatising the old state-owned nationalised industries so that consumers' interests now take top priority?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. We have seen time and again that competition reduces prices. Perhaps the most outstanding example of that is telecommunications.

    Balance Of Trade
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade in manufacturing products in (a) 1979 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): In 1979, the United Kingdom had a surplus of £2.7 billion in manufactured trade. In 1993, there was a deficit of £7.8 billion. Since 1979, the volume of UK exports of manufactures has grown by 60 per cent.
    Mr. Grocott: As the Minister mumbled those disgraceful figures into the Dispatch Box, perhaps I can spell them out a little more clearly. The £2.7 billion surplus in 1979, in real terms, at current prices, would be a £6.8 billion surplus which, after 15 oil-rich years, is now a £7.8 billion deficit. What is the latest Government thinking about a scapegoat for that? Is it the foreigners, the unions, or Labour local authorities? Is it too much to expect the Minister to give us a parliamentary first today and stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the country for representing a Government of the most appalling economic and industrial incompetence?
    Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Labour-controlled local authorities have anything to do with the manufacturing decline of this country, he lives in cloud cuckoo land, as do most of his hon. Friends. If he and his colleagues had been in power, there would have been no reform of the trade unions, no privatisation of public utilities and every business man in the country would have fled because of the tax impositions advocated by Labour Members.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As one of those hon. Members who, probably more than many others, recognised the vital role of manufacturing industry, I fully support the Government's new approach to it and their recognition of its importance. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Government continue to create the right climate for the expansion of manufacturing industry, especially low inflation and low interest rates which are essential to the success of this vital sector?
    Mr. Needham: Yes.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: When does the Minister expect to publish his report on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry? Will he set out in that report his Department's priorities specifically to rebuild the British manufacturing base so that we can secure the advantages of the post-GATT eighth round? Will he be prepared to build into that incentives for companies that make long-term commitments to research and development and innovation in order to counter the short-termism which so often discourages such enterprise?
    Mr. Needham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister invited the House to imagine what would have happened had there been a Labour Government in power. Why does he not admit that if a Labour Government had transformed a surplus of £7 billion at 1993 prices to a deficit of £7 billion in 1993 he would be demanding that they resign? Why does he not take that message himself? Why does he not admit that the cumulative surplus under Labour was more than £80 billion and that the cumulative deficit under the Conservatives has been more than £80 billion? Is that not the real measure of the appalling damage done to our manufacturing industry by 15 years of Conservative rule?
    Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman, with his total lack of understanding and knowledge of industry, had been in power, the deficit would have been £17 billion rather than £7 billion. If he examined the percentages for a moment, he would find that the deficit now is 1¼ per cent. of gross domestic product and the surplus in 1979 was 1½ per cent., so the difference is about 2⅔ per cent. That total number in terms of the size of the economy, when compared with the increase in the surplus on services, is almost meaningless.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not a fact that our balance of trade in manufacturing was falling very sharply in the 1960s and 1970s and especially in the latter part of the 1970s but that since then our record in manufacturing exports, output and productivity has for the first time since the war been better than the average of our main competitors? Does that not mean that in the past 15 years we have made up much of the ground lost when Labour was implementing its industrial strategy to turn British Steel into the world's largest loss maker and British cars into the butt of international music hall jokes?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To cite just one statistic, in the three months to the end of February our exports to Asia have risen by 25 per cent. in value. In the same three months last year, they rose by 11 per cent. in value. Britain's success in increasing our manufacturing exports is unrivalled by that of any other country.

    National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
    Mr. Turner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the impact on consumer advisory services of the real-terms reduction in grant to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux plays an important and valuable role in its support of local citizens advice bureaux. We have more than doubled the grant in aid paid to NACAB in real terms since 1979-80, and I am confident that maintaining the grant in 1993-94 will enable it to provide continued support.
    Mr. Turner: The Minister did not mention that he has cut the grant to citizens advice bureaux for the current year. Citizens advice bureaux in the west midlands, an area which he knows very well, last year received the largest number of inquiries of any region in the United Kingdom, but they will be unable to provide the same level of service to consumers in the forthcoming year. When does he intend to make good the cuts?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I have explained, there have been no cuts. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the west midlands, as I hope that he will join me in congratulating Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton council on increasing the grant paid to the citizens advice bureaux in his own constituency. When the Conservatives took control, they increased the grant by some 25 per cent. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman congratulate them on the excellent job that they are doing.

    Maritime Borders
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the representations made by his Department to the European Commission concerning Interreg 2 and maritime borders.
    Mr. Needham: Northern Ireland does not qualify for a sea border Interreg programme because it does not have an international sea border with another member state. However, the Government are confident that there will be increased support for Northern Ireland under a successor to its Interreg programme with the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister not appreciate that if the Interreg 2 programme remains confined to maritime borders and is not expanded to include maritime regions, as would be consistent with the policy, Northern Ireland and Scotland will suffer in comparison with the southern corridor through north Wales to Dublin? Does he understand our annoyance that when our European representative, Jim Nicholson, went to the European Commission, the Commissioner told him that he was sympathetic but that the Department of Trade and Industry was being unhelpful? Does the Minister not realise that his duty is to represent not only England and Wales but the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Scotland?
    Mr. Needham: I do not need any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about representing the whole of the United Kingdom. The land element in Interreg 2 is much larger than the maritime element. There is no justification for the comments that the hon. Gentleman alleges were made to Mr. Jim Nicholson. It is vital to ensure that Northern Ireland, especially Belfast, gets a reasonable proportion of the land element of Interreg 2, which can be used to ensure that Belfast and other ports in Northern Ireland remain competitive with those of the south. The Government continually tell the Commission that there must be no unfair subsidies that would put the ports of Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.
    Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of the current deliberations on the Interreg 3 programme, and how important it is that south-east Essex should be successful in its application, so as to develop its infrastructure and therefore improve its manufacturing competitiveness?
    Mr. Needham: I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry will ensure that those arguments are heard loud and clear in the Commission.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government's promise to give top priority to the links not only between Holyhead and Dublin but between

    193
    Pembroke and south-east Ireland still stands, and that they are working on it? Will he confirm that in Wales the Welsh Office will be in charge of administering the programme?
    Mr. Needham: As I understand it, the local Departments will administer the programme. Representations are being made to the Commission and the results, including those relating to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, will be known in June. I repeat what I said about the need to ensure that all the ports in the United Kingdom are treated fairly.

    Competitiveness, Buckinghamshire
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the competitiveness of industries in Buckinghamshire.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Under the Government, we now have the lowest interest rates for nearly 20 years, manufacturing productivity at an all-time high, and we have the lowest underlying inflation for the past 26 years. Investment in plant and machinery is up nearly 50 per cent. since 1979.
    I am pleased to announce that a new business link in Aylesbury is expected to open in June. We shall announce our further policies on competitiveness in a White Paper to be published soon.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a competitive world economy it is important not only for large British companies but for small and medium-sized companies, which form the majority of employers in places such as Aylesbury, to get used to exporting as part of their regular business planning? Will he ensure that the welcome new business link office in Aylesbury, and other measures adopted by the Department, will provide advice to enable small and medium-sized employers to go out and break into overseas markets?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Like many people, I believe that job creation in the future will come from the small and medium-sized business sector. We in the Department of Trade and Industry are determined to reinforce the efforts of that vital
    part of the British economy by providing a first-class advisory service through the business link movement. We are also determined to push on with the export promoter initiative, which has now attracted about 75 secondees from the private sector to my Department to help and advise the small companies that we wish to see pioneer export markets.

    Fuel Bills (Early Payment)
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be meeting the gas and electricity regulators to discuss the effect of the early payment of fuel bills.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I meet the gas and electricity regulators from time to time. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of the gas and electricity companies on their regulated business.
    Mr. Hughes: At those meetings, will the Minister put pressure on the regulators to ensure that any profits made by the power companies from advance payments will be
    194
    returned to the customers in terms of reduced bills, especially for those who could not afford to go through the loophole, as the wealthy did, and make advance payments? Will the Minister put pressure on so that those least able to afford the bills will have a reduction?
    Mr. Eggar: That is a matter for the companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I have noticed that Midlands Electricity has announced that £500,000 of income derived from interest from pre-payments will be donated to the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust. I very much congratulate Midlands Electricity on that initiative.
    Mr. Congdon: Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the regulators the fact that consumers are pleased by the substantial reductions, in real terms, in their energy bills since the privatisation of the once state-owned monopolies?
    Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The position is in stark contrast to Labour's record when in power, when electricity prices rose by 22 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that a number of the regional electricity companies have misled their consumers? East Midlands Electricity has on its form:
    "VAT on electricity—There is no need to make an additional payment and East Midlands Electricity does not encourage you to do so."
    Yet in the next sentence, the company says:
    "Additional payments can be made using the payment slip below."
    Those contradictory statements were designed to mislead consumers. Surely the least that the Government can do is to point out to the regulator the misleading statements, and the way in which the companies are fleecing people and making vast profits. Neighbourhood energy schemes are just a drop in the ocean compared with people's suffering as a consequence of the 8·5 per cent. increase.
    Mr. Eggar: As I understand it from what the hon. Gentleman said, the company was telling consumers about the choice available to them. The nature of the hon. Gentleman's question reveals all. If he were Minister for Energy, which God forbid, he would be saying exactly what must be done in terms of billing and what consumers must do, depriving consumers of all choice.
    Mr. Brazier: With regard to the early payment of bills, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Mrs. Scott, whose home I was privileged to visit on Monday? She has come up with a far more effective way to reduce her fuel bills, using the Government's splendid new home insulation grants which are now available to all pensioners.
    Mr. Eggar: I will, of course, congratulate Mrs. Scott and my hon. Friend. I dare say that the scheme will go particularly well in Midlands Electricity areas as I suspect that it has been funded with the help of the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust.

    Utility Regulators
    Mr. Battle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the power of the utility regulators over high charges and preferential boardroom share options.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): The utility regulators have sufficient powers to protect consumers' interests over a range of issues, including prices. The remuneration of company directors is a matter for the company concerned and its shareholders.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of Yorkshire Water, Sir Gordon Jones, stands to make £260,000 profit on his share option deal, but is giving many of my constituents the single option of accepting expensive, unaffordable metering? All other water consumers have no option but to pay unacceptable and extortionate charges. When will the Minister give real power to the regulators and redress that injustice?
    Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the arrangement, I suggest that he buys some shares in the company, attends the annual general meeting and speaks out there. In general, the position is substantially improved compared with that under the Labour Government, when such individuals were paid large sums for turning in large losses, which were ultimately subsidised by taxpayers. Now, at least, profits are being divided, part among employees and part among directors. That seems a significant improvement.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Is it not typical of the Opposition to show envy about the success of companies and the share option schemes, which are valuable only because the companies have done very well? Is it not a fact that many of the executive share option schemes about which the Opposition complain are linked to employee share option schemes, which are also valuable if the company has done well?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is an important element in providing incentives to companies to become more efficient, which is in the general interest of consumers. As the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) shows, never has the difference between the two parties in the House been so amply demonstrated. As defined by Winston Churchill, while capitalism involves the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism means the equal sharing of misery.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the Minister aware of the extreme public anger and fury in Yorkshire about the actions of the water regulator, who has extended his power through the President of the Board of Trade despite numerous letters from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, thus allowing the chairman of Ofwat's Yorkshire customer services committee to be sacked by the regulator? Does that not smack of power, patronage and preference, which is out of place in a public service such as the water industry?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is a bit of a cheek for a Labour Member of Parliament to accuse the Government or any organisation such as Ofwat of nepotism or partiality. It was, after all, the last Labour Prime Minister who appointed his son-in-law as Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington. The director general of Ofwat gave evidence this morning to the Select Committee on the Environment and I am sure that he is capable of defending himself. Ofwat has rejected claims that the director general has
    196
    acted in any way improperly in making appointments to the customer services committee. Of course, a balance must be drawn between experience and turnover.

    Trade Missions
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries in the far east to which it is planned to send trade missions supported by his Department.
    Mr. Needham: There are currently plans for six ministerial visits to the far east, including trade missions, in the remainder of the year. On present plans, I hope that on those missions I will visit Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and China.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend accept my appreciation of the recent support that he has given to the Jetstream aircraft in my constituency? Is he aware that Jetstream has recently established a spares department in Singapore to service an increasing fleet? Will he ensure that on future trade missions Jetstream aircraft will be promoted as first-class aircraft and that the back-up services will also be promoted as first-class services?
    Mr. Needham: I am only too delighted—I am sure that I also speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends—that any mission that we take to the far east should include companies from my hon. Friend's constituency. I also extend that invitation an all hon. Members. If there are companies in their constituencies which they think can export successfully to the far east, we should be only too delighted to include them. As a result of the missions that we have undertaken over the past two years, sales to Singapore were up some 30 per cent. in 1993 on 1992 and some 30 per cent. in the first three months of this year. That is true throughout the whole of the far east and I am sure that that will continue to be the case.
    Mr. Bell: With due respect, the House welcomes the Minister's globe-trotting activities, but in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is it not a fact that our world trade has steadied while that of France has increased? On his missions abroad, does the Minister think that our embassy and high commission staff are sufficient for the job or do we need more? Are we sure that the dead hand of the Treasury is not lying across our exports? What can the Minister do to ensure that there is a level playing field for the British when dealing with the French, the Germans and the Americans and not a tilted playing field?
    Mr. Needham: Our strategy, which has developed over the past two years, gives us a business plan in each of the major markets of the world and these are supported by the posts overseas. We discuss staffing levels through the joint export promotion directorate, and at present I have no indication from it that we are below strength or below the plans that we have set out. We are showing British industry —I am glad that we have its support—that we are giving it as good a service as that received by any company in any country anywhere in the developed world.

    Business Confidence
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on business confidence.
    Mr. Heseltine: All the major business surveys show that British industry is increasingly confident about the future.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that confidence is rooted in the fact that Britain is now a low interest rate, low inflation and growing economy—[Interruption]—attributes which Labour Members appear to find derisory—and that we also have a relative competitive edge in Europe and the world which Opposition party policies would jeopardise, probably at the cost of millions of jobs, through their socialist and strikers' charters?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I need hardly remind hon. Members yet again that it is the Executive who are being brought to account during Question Time. It is not an Opposition party which must have its policies questioned but the Executive.
    Mr. Heseltine: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that since 1981, the volume of United Kingdom manufactured exports has grown faster than in France, Germany, Italy and Japan.
    Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister accept that business confidence in the northern region was greatly knocked by the Government's decision to cut the grant to the Northern Development Company? In view of the continuing success of that company—of course, local authorities and the private sector are maintaining their commitment to the NDC—and as the northern region is crying out for jobs and investment, what possible sense could there have been in the Government's decision?
    Mr. Heseltine: The confidence of the business sector in the north will be affected by the state of the order book and the effectiveness of its ability to compete. That is what matters to industrialists. We will do our best to continue to support them within the resources available to my Department.
    Sir David Madel: In relation to business confidence in Bedfordshire, my right hon. Friend is aware of the situation of Lancer Boss Trucks in Leighton Buzzard. Can he assure me that his Department will do all that it can to help the receiver to sell the company as a going concern so that manufacturing jobs in the fork-lift truck industry in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, can be retained?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the House would want to hear about this extremely important matter. It is extraordinary that when jobs and investment in manufacturing industry are at stake, Labour Members seek to turn it into a national joke. The fact is that Ministers and officials have already been in touch with both the company and the receivers. My Department will do all that it can to assist, but it cannot become involved in the receivers' administration of the case. However, there seems to be a good prospect of an offer being made for the Lancer Boss group as a whole.
    Mr. Fatchett: For a Government who claimed that business confidence depended on the level of taxation, how does the President of the Board of Trade explain to business people the fact that the Government have increased taxes to a record level and imposed a savage increase in taxation on every family in the country? Is not that another example of the Government's economic incompetence damaging Britain's business interests?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. All the latest business surveys show growing confidence. The reason for that growing confidence is that British industry wants a competitive exchange rate, rising productivity, low inflation and low interest rates. Under this Government, it is getting all four.

    Jobs And Exports
    Mr. Paice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the average numbers of United Kingdom jobs created or maintained for every £1 billion earned by United Kingdom exports.
    Mr. Needham: The best available estimate is that £1 billion of visible exports is likely to be associated with around 30,000 jobs.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend accept that that clearly demonstrates what many of us have known for a long time: Britain has and always will be a trading nation and we must export to provide jobs and the wealth of the country? Does not last week's announcement that British car exports to Japan increased by 30 per cent. demonstrate that we are now in a competitive situation? Is not it time that we recognised that competitiveness and a flexible labour market go together, and those who would impose regulations on our labour force and load burdens on our employers would destroy competitiveness, destroy exports and destroy jobs?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a competitive industry. We must do everything that we can to ensure that it stays that way, and the' most important thing is to deny power to the Labour party.
    Mr. Winnick: If all is so well, as the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister have repeatedly said this afternoon, why is there such a lobby on the Tory Benches for the President of the Board of Trade to replace the Prime Minister? Is not it a fact that many Tory Members find the present situation in the country so appalling that they want to replace the Prime Minister with the President?
    Madam Speaker: Order. As I said earlier, this an opportunity to question Government policy, not to question individuals or Opposition policies. I suggest that the Minister replies to the first part of the question.
    Mr. Needham: The second part of the question made me so cross that I have forgotten the first part.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mrs. Lait. Let us have a sensible question from a woman.
    Mrs. Lait: I will try to restrain my anger. When does my hon. Friend expect accurate statistics from the European Union about trade within member states?
    Mr. Needham: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact estimate. I have no reason to believe that the way in which the statistics are collected here means that they are any less competently done or accurate than they are in other European states. There is a bedding-down period and it will affect the balance of trade figures in all the countries of Europe for some time yet.

    Gas Consumer Council
    Mr. Berry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will assess the impact of the reduction in the Gas Consumer Council's budget on the availability of advice to the public on gas safety.
    Mr. Eggar: The Gas Consumer Council has indicated that it expects to be able to carry out all its functions within the budget allocated for 1994-95.
    Mr. Berry: In that case, can the Minister say why only this morning the Gas Consumer Council told me that the impact of the cuts would be borne by leaflets and the provision of information? Does he ask me to believe his account of the impact on safety campaigns in the gas industry, or to believe the Gas Consumer Council's account?
    Mr. Eggar: My understanding is that the Gas Consumer Council is confident of being able to carry out its current functions. It will have to absorb a small reduction in its budget, in accordance with the necessary restrictions on public expenditure as a whole, but it is absolutely typical of the Opposition parties that they fail to recognise that the alternative to reductions in public expenditure is increases in taxation.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Why do we need a Gas Consumer Council?
    Mr. Eggar: It was generally felt when the gas industry was privatised that there was a need for consumer protection and that the best way to achieve it was through the operation of Ofgas and the Gas Consumer Council. The Gas Consumer Council, together with other similar consumer bodies, must be able to show that it is working hard in the interests of consumers in order to justify its continued existence.

    Insolvency Service Agency
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President sof the Board of Trade what recent increase there has been in the staff of the Insolvency Service agency's disqualification unit.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Insolvency Service's disqualification unit has recently been increased by four staff on loan from other Government Departments and by two fully qualified staff seconded from the private sector. In 1994-95, we propose to provide further resources to enable up to 15 extra staff, including secondees from the private sector, to be added to the complement of the unit. Official receivers will be committing more of their resources to disqualification and prosecution work. As a result, disqualification proceedings against unfit directors are expected to increase substantially within 12 months of completion of training of the new staff.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister's announcement of a total of 15 extra staff is welcome, but it is hardly likely to make much of a dent in the increased demand on the Insolvency Service from the increase of over 400 per cent. in bankruptcies since 1987. What does the Minister say to the National Audit Office's report on the Insolvency Service last year, which stated that up to 50 per cent. of directors who merited disqualification would not be disqualified because the resources were inadequate, or to the admission—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. I must have brisk questions and brisk answers.
    Mr. Hamilton: Since 1989-90 the number of staff employed in the Insolvency Service has increased from 1,400 to 1,800. There has been, as a result of the recession, a significant increase in the workload of the service with which it has coped extremely well. We are aware of the problems that were identified by the National Audit Office's report. We are considering methods of addressing those difficulties and I am waiting now for the report of the Public Accounts Committee, following which I shall, I hope, be in a position to make an announcement.
    Mr. Page rose—
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Malcolm Moss.
    Mr. Page: There is a resemblance, Madam Speaker, although my hon. Friend is not quite as good-looking.
    In contrast to the carping question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), does not the increase in manpower reflect to the credit of both the agency and the Government? Is not it a positive reaction to the National Audit Office report and the Public Accounts Committee inquiry in January this year? Will not the improvement allow closer co-operation between the Insolvency Service and the agencies, and make company directors more aware of their responsibilities, thus giving greater protection to the public, which we all want?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend and I pay a warm tribute to the staff employed by the Insolvency Service for the way in which they have. coped with the dramatic upturn in work in recent years. We must try to find more flexible means of taking on staff to cope with such peaks as well as troughs in the work. The consultancy studies presently being undertaken will help to do that and we want to be able to contract and expand the service according to the work available. Thus, we shall not have to take staff permanently on to the books who will be under-utilised at times when there is not enough work for them.

    Research And Development
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was invested in research and development by British industry during 1992-93; and what percentage this represents of gross domestic product.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, UK businesses undertook £7,930 million of research and development, equivalent to 1.3 per cent. of gross domestic product.
    Mr. Williams: Investment in research and development by British industry is about one third less than that of our

    201
    industrial competitors. Does the Minister agree that as a society we should be devoting something like 1 per cent. more of our GDP to research and development? What proposals do the Government have to achieve that?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Investment in research and development is a matter for companies to take into consideration when they come to formulate their plans. I was encouraged by the CBI innovation trends survey which showed that 50 per cent. of companies had plans to increase their expenditure on research and development in 1993.
    Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend consider the relative position of our research and development in comparison with Japan, the United States, Germany and all the other countries in the EC? Have we done well enough in relation to those countries? If not, we will go down the tubes.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend. If one compares our figures with those for Japan and Germany, the UK is behind. However, we are above the other countries in the European Union.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree that it is important for our international competitiveness to improve our business expenditure on civil research and development? Has not the time come for Government incentives to ensure that companies invest in research and development? Does he consider tax incentives to be a good way forward?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We will always look at any representations that are made. The Government have a good record on rates of taxation for companies and it is for companies to decide how they wish to invest. There have been huge investments in this country.

    Small Business Directives
    Mr. Steen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to meet his European counterparts to discuss reducing the number of general directives affecting small businesses emanating from Brussels.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: As my hon. Friend will realise, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no exact counterpart in Europe—he is unique.
    We frequently have meetings with other Ministers in the Council of Ministers and high on our agenda for discussion is deregulation and the need to reduce the regulatory burdens on business which threaten to destroy so many jobs on our continent.
    Mr. Steen: The problem is the over-zealous interpretation of general directives by Whitehall officials on which other countries take a relaxed view. Is my hon. Friend aware that in Spain there are 63 fisheries officials based in Madrid—1,000 miles from the coast? That is just like running the Wembley cup final with the referee in Aberdeen. In this country, there are more than 300 fisheries officials looking after fisheries business who are based in ports. In the future, we should make sure that we pursue general directives only when other countries pursue them as rigorously as we do.
    Mr. Hamilton: As my hon. Friend will know, I am responsible for the single market compliance unit, so I am always interested in the sort of stories that he brings to the
    202
    House. It is vital that Britain does not impose differential burdens on its employers and businesses. We must apply the lightest possible regulatory touch, learn from the experience of other member states and take a more imaginative approach to some of the European Union directives.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among those offering bed-and-breakfast facilities and holiday cottages that a forthcoming European directive may prevent them from taking deposits for holidays? That would have a devastating impact on those small businesses. What are the Government doing to prevent that devastation?
    Mr. Hamilton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in deregulation—he is usually on the other side of the argument. I well appreciate the problems, as reported to the hon. Gentleman, that confront bed-and-breakfast establishments and I assure him that they do not lack for an advocate in the Department of Trade and Industry.

    Balance Of Trade
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total balance of trade with the European Union over the most recent five-year period for which figures are available; and what was the balance for manufactures only in the same period.
    Mr. Heseltine: In the five years to 1992, the UK had a cumulative trade deficit with the rest of the European Union of 1.8 per cent. of GDP. The deficit in manufactures over the same period was 1.6 per cent. of GDP.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: The figures show that our cumulative trade deficit with the European Community has now broken through £100,000 million, which is equivalent to £8,000 per British family. Is not there a case for an inquiry into why there is such a huge deficit compared with the profit that Britain used to have on its trade with Europe before it joined that ridiculous socialist organisation—especially as the Government recently changed the statistical basis for calculation, which makes matters look better?
    Mr. Heseltine: I would hope that, without such an inquiry being set up, my hon. Friend would know the answer. The explanation is simple—it is that we have not been sufficiently competitive in selling our goods in the European market in the way that Europe has been successful in selling its goods in Britain. Until the hard lessons of that fact bear upon the industrial, commercial and political world, we will continue to have a deficit.
    There is another, important side to the argument. We attracted more than 40 per cent. of the stock of Japanese and almost 40 per cent. of the stock of United States inward investment into the European Community in 1992. That would be at risk if were to question our membership of the European Union.

    Export Promoter Initiative
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on current progress with the export promoter initiative.
    Mr. Heseltine: Excellent progress has been made with this initiative and 75 high-quality export promoters have now been recruited.
    Mr. Arnold: May I welcome the considerable progress now being made? We have long needed an effective link between the high-quality commercial sections in our overseas missions and our high-quality exporters in Britain, especially the potential exporters in our constituencies.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall take this opportunity to say a word of thanks to the many companies—rather less than 75—that have seconded high-quality staff to my Department. They are having a profound effect and are working extremely well with the 80 officers that the Department has seconded to survey and report on the 80 senior markets to which we export.
    Mrs. Clwyd: How many people in the right hon. Gentleman's Department are involved in promoting the export of coal, so that pits such as the Tower colliery in my constituency will not, through sheer vindictiveness, be forced to close on Friday because of the incompetence of both the Government and British Coal?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady can go on making such remarks for as long as she likes, but the reason why British Coal's pits have been closed is that they could not produce a product for which there was a market at a price that people were prepared to pay. If anyone has the slightest doubt about that, he should reflect on why the private sector is negotiating to take over pits that have been closed by British Coal—it is because the private sector believes that it can make a success of them.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest export promoter for British industry is for it to design and manufacture products that the rest of the world wants to buy, produce them at competitive prices and of excellent quality, deliver them on time and give good after-sales service? That is the great export promoter for Britain and that is what Britain is doing at the moment.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is proving himself a great export promoter, by articulately putting over the only message on which industrial export success can be based.

    Telecommunications Industry
    Ms Hoey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support he is giving to the British telecommunications industry.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Government's policies of liberalisation and encouraging competition have created a world-class telecommunications sector and we have seen a 30 per cent. reduction in British Telecom's charges to the consumer in real terms since privatisation. My Department is working closely with all parts of the United Kingdom telecommunications industry, including the manufacturing sector.
    Ms Hoey: Does the Minister understand that his obsession with competition is undermining British Telecom's ability to compete as one of the big four or five international telecommunications companies? Why is he not doing something to allow British Telecom to get into the American market instead of giving favoured treatment
    204
    to cable operators and other international telecommunications companies to enable them to operate here, without having reciprocal agreements for BT?
    Mr. McLoughlin: That was—I Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that there is a disturbance in the House? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes.") Then let us end it.
    Mr. McLoughlin: That was an extraordinary outburst from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey). Competition in telecommunications has resulted in a reduction in costs to the consumer. More people have telephones in their homes now than before privatisation. We are keen for British Telecom and the other telecommunications operators to become world-class companies and, by freeing them from the state sector, we have allowed them to do so.
    Mr. Dykes: Is the Department fully encouraging the exciting new development of telephones in aeroplanes?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am always interested in any new developments. My hon. Friend, who spends some time on aeroplanes, may take advantage of that service.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister know of another exciting experiment—sending video down telephone wires? At long last that is starting in Britain, but the technology comes from France, Canada and the United States. What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It is being exploited by British Telecom.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only do we have the most liberalised telecommunications market in Europe, but that that liberalisation has led to a dramatic improvement in the quality of service since the industry was privatised and to a massive increase in investment and productivity, all of which the Opposition choose to ignore?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The quality of services has improved, prices have been reduced and both domestic and business consumers have benefited, as have the taxpayer and the economy.

    Fire Safety
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the report of the construction industry task force relating to fire safety.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The working papers of all seven business task forces—including those of the construction group—were placed in the Library of the House on Wednesday 30 March.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he believe that there should be much wider publication of those papers, especially the paper relating to the construction industry task force in view of its serious recommendation for the repeal of the Fire Precautions Act 1971? If we repeal that Act, are not fire precautions and safety checks likely to be weakened?
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not accept that for a moment. It is vital that we maintain proper regard for safety in any reforms that might take place, and that we will do. The

    205
    recommendations of the construction industry task force have since been superseded by a new review of fire legislation and the organisation of fire safety enforcement. Mr. Alf Thompson, the chief officer of the Durham fire service, is one of the five members of the team involved, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the concerns of professionals will be taken properly into account.

    Trade Missions
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries to which it is planned to send trade missions supported by his Department.
    Mr. Needham: Worldwide, more than 20 ministerial visits involving trade missions are planned in the remainder of the year.
    On present plans, I intend to visit Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Oman, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand and Venezuela.
    Mr. Pawsey: Clearly, my hon. Friend will be a very busy and much-travelled man. May I congratulate the Department on the emphasis placed on overseas trade missions? What is the Department's budget for such missions and what emphasis is placed by it on promoting the export of engineering products?
    Mr. Needham: The budget for the provision of support for missions is some £1.7 million a year. But the key point is that, with the support of our 75 export promoters, we now have market plans for each of the major 80 markets in the world. In addition, we have a plan in each sector, which in almost every country includes engineering products. We are determined to provide a peerless and first-class service to our engineering companies exporting overseas—a service that rivals anything available in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United States, or anywhere else.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When Ministers and trade missions are abroad will they let it be known to officials of foreign Governments and to business men that in Workington there is a 500,000 sq ft modern factory site, formerly occupied by Leyland National for the manufacture of buses, but now empty? That site is available for inward investment. Will the hon. Gentleman push the factory's availability? We need a new tenant or acquisition by another company.
    Mr. Needham: I should be delighted to do what the hon. Member suggests. I should be even more delighted if he were to accompany me. We could go selling as we used to do 30 years ago.
    Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the fact that many previous trade missions have resulted in billions of pounds' worth of aircraft exports, resulting in the creation of many jobs in this country, will my hon. Friend welcome the first flight of the Eurofighter and will he liaise with the Ministry of Defence with a view to setting up a trade mission to sell this aircraft abroad?
    Mr. Needham: I have listened to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the answer is yes.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry.
    Mr. Eggar: Both my right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a range of coal industry matters.
    Mr. Hanson: On the day of the publication of the coal prospectus, would not it be appropriate for the Minister to arrange an urgent meeting with the chairman of British Coal to ensure that the scheme of enhanced redundancy payments for miners will continue after 30 April so that workers in the Tower colliery and in many other pits throughout the country do not have to face an agonising choice between losing redundancy payments and fighting for their jobs?
    Mr. Eggar: This is a matter for British Coal, which, I understand, has announced that terms will not be available beyond 30 April.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister confirm that the prospectus for the sale of British Coal, which has been published today, establishes that the Tower colliery will be placed on a care and maintenance basis despite the weekend vote of the work force that it be kept open? Why is the hon. Gentleman determined to close a pit that is in profit? How can he defend a market that closes pits that produce cheap coal, making possible the production of electricity that is cheaper than gas, nuclear energy or French imports? Why are men who have doubled their productivity being rewarded by being made redundant? Will the hon. Gentleman, during the last few months of public ownership of the mines, halt the redundancy among the miners?
    Mr. Eggar: Even by his own standards, the hon. Gentleman is being highly irresponsible. Clearly he has not read the document that has been published. It says quite clearly that the Tower colliery is currently operating, but that British Coal has proposed its closure. It could not be a clearer or fairer representation of the actual position.

    Motor Car Production
    Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the level of United Kingdom motor car production has changed in the past 12 months; and what the equivalent figures are for France and Germany.
    Mr. McLoughlin: United Kingdom car production for the year ending January 1994 was 5 per cent. higher than for the year ending January 1993. This compares with falls of 14 per cent. and 22 per cent. in France and Germany respectively.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of new car registrations is up by about 7 per cent. in the first quarter of this year and that the industry's productivity showed an increase of 7 per cent. in the whole of 1993? Does he agree that the reputation of British cars, once so poor, has been totally transformed in the past 10 years—hence these excellent export performances—and that they are now among the finest in the world?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I agree entirely. Ours is truly one of the success stories of the car industry. The United

    207
    Kingdom is now securing huge amounts of investment in the motor manufacturing industry, something that was unthought of in the late 1970s.
    Mr. Miller: I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating Vauxhall Motors at Ellesmere Port on sustaining a massive export effort. Does he share the views expressed by a number of major manufacturers in the area that that export effort would be improved if investment were made in the railway infrastructure, especially the west coast main line and the links into the manufacturing complexes?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Investment in the rail industry is important. As the hon. Gentleman says, since 1989 some £200 million has been invested in manufacturing facilities for production of the Astra at Ellesmere Port.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Toyota, which is sited just between Lichfield and Derby—an area which my hon. Friend knows well—will, when it comes on stream at the end of this year, make Britain a net exporter of cars? Is he further aware that, had it been up to the Opposition, Toyota would not even have looked at Britain because of their introduction of the social chapter?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, I know the Toyota factory to which he refers, as it is only two miles from where I live. Toyota made the largest single investment ever made in Europe. It chose the United Kingdom because it was confident in how the Government had transformed the economy.

Points, of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your help on a matter that concerns all hon. Members? It is the general question of how on earth Members can question Ministers about what they are negotiating in the European Union, and what arrangements and agreements they have reached. In particular, has the Minister of Agriculture given you notice of a statement on what was agreed—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On fishing.
Mr. Harris: Indeed—on fishing in the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg yesterday. That is a matter of prime importance to fishermen in the south-west and all around the coast, yet we have no knowledge whatever of what was agreed. There are conflicting reports in the media.
Will you, Madam Speaker, use your great office to impress on Ministers the need to report regularly and promptly to the House on such matters? Moreover, should we not look at the great gap in our procedures which means that we cannot get at Ministers effectively immediately before or after such crucial negotiations?
Madam Speaker: I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that those on his own Front Bench have heard it. May I refer him to written question 117 today, which may partially answer his point? Perhaps he can take the matter from there and pursue it through parliamentary questions.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: As I have now dealt with the matter, there is nothing further to say. As far as I am concerned, it is now finished. We do not continue points of order in debate.
Mr. Tony Benn: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, to ask your assistance on a matter that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. At 2.30 today, you announced, in accordance with normal practice, the death of a good friend of ours, Bob Cryer. Members do die from time to time, but there is no opportunity, save for famous Members of the House, for tributes to be paid.
In three weeks' or a month's time, the Chief Whip will move, That Madam Speaker do issue her warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for a by-election in the room of Bob Cryer. The matter concerns not just him, although it occurs to me now as he was a good friend of mine over a long period. But it would be friendly if the House could find an opportunity at 3.30 so that, when our colleagues pass away, Members who knew them well can stand up and say something about them. Will you consider that, because it would be in line with the feeling of hon. Members?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Mr. Skinner—does it relate to this matter?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes. May I raise just one additional point to what my right hon. Friend has just said? Only a few months ago, a statement was made—it was on the agenda—about the retirement of the head Librarian. Various people took part in paying compliments to the head Librarian.
I should have thought that, taking a line through that, it would make a lot of sense, in the case of people like Bob and others, for those who wish to pay him a compliment to be able to do so. Will you also consider, Madam Speaker, the precedent of making a statement regarding somebody's passing away, like Bob's, after Question Time when the House is full?
I do not think that the current procedure is quite appropriate; I have always considered that to be the case. I think that, if you take on board that suggestion and the one advanced by my right hon. Friend, it would suit everybody in the House on future occasions.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I associate myself, from the Government side of the House, with the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I am sure that you are aware that there are too few House of Commons people who are prepared to challenge the establishment and the Executive. Bob Cryer was one of those people, and the House will miss him. I hope that there will be an opportunity to pay tribute to a very distinguished parliamentarian.
Madam Speaker: I am pleased to hear such remarks from both sides of the House. The House will be interested to know that I have been approached privately by a number of hon. Members in the last few hours about this matter. It is a highly sensitive and emotional matter and I hope that the House will allow me to reflect upon it. I think that I have caught the spirit and the feeling of the House in the last five minutes.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, on 29 March, the Prime Minister made a statement about various undertakings which had been given by the Commission of the European Communities in respect of the treaty of enlargement. The next day—the 30th—it was reported in the press that Mr. Delors had said, "No, no, no." I took the opportunity of asking the Foreign Secretary—the question appears in column 921—how he reconciled these matters, and he said that the assurances had been "reconfirmed".
I then put down a written question, which was replied to today and appears in column 20 of the current Hansard. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), a Minister in the Department, replied to my question concerning these undertakings: how they were written down, where they could be seen and by what means this reconfirmation had been made.
The answer he gave is as follows:
"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 contracts between his office and the office of Mr. Delors."
That is strange, because the rest of the answer states:
"The undertakings in the social field announced by my right hon. Friend … were oral assurances and are not recorded in the documents. They will not therefore be incorporated, in whole or in part, in the draft treaty."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 20.]
I therefore infer, hope and believe that the word "contracts" should have been "contacts"—there may have

211
been a telephone call. I ask you therefore, Madam Speaker —quite apart from the use of the prerogative which may be involved—whether that was so, in view of the great importance of these matters to the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. It is just a question of one word. The word that was used was "contracts", whereas the word that should have been used was "contacts". There is a world of difference between the two, and the amendment is now being made.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall, as I am sure the House does, the great importance that the Prime Minister himself attached to these assurances given by the Commission during his statement to the House on 29 March. We now know that those assurances were given in an entirely oral form. Surely it is right that the House should have a record of those oral contacts so that we can judge for ourselves just how binding, in practice, they may turn out to be.
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is of course a much greater matter than a simple slip of a word. If he wishes to pursue the matter to which he refers, he must do so through the usual channels.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR FRIDAY 29 APRIL
Members successful in the ballot were:

Sir John Hannam

Mr. Michael Clapham

Mr. John Spellar

Fair Treatment for Widowers
3.39 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure fair treatment for widowers.
I say immediately that my Bill deals with widowers with dependent children. Some 10 per cent. of all lone parents are men. If one discounts those who were never married, there are about 60,000 isolated widowers with children, who are a forgotten minority in our country.
The problem is that the treatment that widowers and their children receive is different from that received by widows and their children. The treatment amounts to discrimination, and results in spiralling poverty and hardship; it frequently splits the children from their fathers when they are taken into care.
Why do we have the problem? There are two reasons. The first is the system in this country, and the second is due to history. We have a system that is rigid; it is ordained by Whitehall on nationally made assumptions. It is inflexible, with little ability to deal with minority hard luck cases.
As for the history, the subject was raised by our much-respected colleague, the late Mrs. Judith Chaplin, who died last year. In 1948, a system was introduced on the basis that widows needed more support than widowers. At that time, one woman was employed for every two men, but that is no longer the case. Now, for every 10 women employed, 11 men are employed. It is no longer possible to assume that, when a woman dies, the children will suffer financially as a result.
That was the unhappy position of discrimination and inequality in which Mr. John Kao, who sits in the Public Gallery with one of his children—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the fact that we do not refer to people outside the Chamber. There are Members and strangers, and we do not refer to a stranger in the House. We refer only to a colleague in the Chamber.
Mr. Booth: I am obliged to you, Madam Speaker. I was not aware of that rule.
The wife of one of my constituents died on 3 November 1990. My constituent was left with six children under the age of 15, the youngest of whom was only five and a half months old, and the oldest is still at school now, aged 17. My constituent has had to bring up his children alone in a position that has been not only disadvantageous, but positively discriminatory.
My constituent was unemployed at the time of his wife's death, and the authorities told him to get a job, as he would then be better off than he was on social security. That was wrong. He would have had to find a job that would give him £400 a week. Of course, such a job was not available. His previous employment a few years earlier had provided only £250 a week. My constituent was being asked to obtain the impossible.
What was my constituent receiving from our system? He was receiving £114 a week. Had he been a widow, he would have received £1,000 on the death of his spouse, and between £198 and £250 per week.
That is not the final twist in this unhappy tale. Had he been fortunate enough to obtain a job earning £400 a week, every penny—apart from child allowance—would have been removed. Had he been a widow, none of it, apart from

213
the small amount of £10, would have been removed. The benefit would have been ring-fenced and secure had he been a widow, but it was removed because he was a widower. That is further discrimination, and not only my constituent suffered but his children. I went to see Mr. Kao —may I refer to him that way?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may refer to his constituent in that general way.
Mr. Booth: I am learning on my feet, Madam Speaker.
I saw Mr. Kao at his house, and found him to be an admirable manager of a difficult situation. After paying for fuel, he had £64 left to spend each week on the seven mouths in that household. After allowing for clothing, only 80p per day each is left for Mr. Kao and his children—an appalling situation.
I was extremely angry that such a thing could happen in this country. It is an indictment of poverty in a civilised nation, of discrimination against men and their children, and of a social security system that has the laudable aim of targeting those most in need but has failed in this case.
The Government cannot use the excuse that there is no money, or produce figures to show that a huge amount would have to be spent if every widower were to be dealt with. The Government have a policy of targeting those most in need. Mr. Kao and his children are most in need, and they are not being helped.
My Bill hopes to address that situation. We must help Mr. Kao and other widowers and their children. I hope that my Bill will do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley Booth, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Michael Alison, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Gary Streeter, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. David Lidington and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

Fair Treatment for Widowers
  FAIR TREATMENT FOR WIDOWERS
  Mr. Hartley Booth accordingly presented a Bill to ensure fair treatment for widowers: And the same was. read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  As amended (in Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
    New clause 77

      PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR
      '.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to consume any alcoholic liquor in any public place and a constable may arrest without warrant any person committing such an offence.
      (2) In this section—
      "alcoholic liquor" has the same meaning as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
      "public place" means any place to which the public do or may have access which is not licensed premises in semis of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.'.—[Mr. Bill Walker.]
      —Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.47 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 81—Public consumption of alcoholic liquor by persons under the age of eighteen—
      '.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person under the age of eighteen years to consume any alcoholic liquor in any public place and a constable may arrest without warrant any person committing such an offence.
      (2) In this section—
      "alcoholic liquor" has the same meaning as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
      "public place" means any place to which the public do or may have access which is not licensed premises in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.'.
      Mr. Walker: I welcome the fact that present in the Chamber are the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I must also declare an interest, as vice-chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. Other officers and members of that group are present in the Chamber, and they support the measures that I have before the House.
      Neither I nor any of my supporters oppose the consumption of alcoholic liquor. How could we, when we are members of the all-party Scotch whisky group? However, we oppose the drinking of liquor in public places, where its consumption creates a nuisance to others.
      Legislation currently passing through the House seems likely to provide the opportunity for off-licences, supermarkets and distillery shops to open on Sunday. I support Sunday opening, particularly that of distillery shops. Mine is a large rural constituency, where tourism is a vital aspect of my constituents' well-being. It seems nonsense to us that people can go around and view our distillery shops on a Sunday, yet cannot buy the products on display. We should change the legislation.
      We must face the fact that the enlightened legislation could be at risk. It might not be well received. If individuals take the opportunity to shop on Sunday and purchase the alcoholic drink, then immediately go outside and consume it outside the door of the shop, supermarket,

      215
      off-licence or wherever, that would create the kind of nuisance that would bring the enlightened legislation into disrepute.
      As every hon. Member knows, in every city and town, and in many villages, there are public areas—parks, civic squares and other places where the public congregate—where groups of people drink alcohol and create a public nuisance. The experiment conducted in my home town of Dundee demonstrated that, with adequate local supervision and policing, it is possible to prevent that nuisance.
      Sadly, it also showed that such action can drive the nuisance into other parts of the community. Consequently —I hope that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is listening—a statutory measure seems to be the only way to address that problem. I suggest that my new clauses are the logical way to do so, particularly, as I have mentioned, with the other legislation that is going through the House.
      Another matter of great concern to all of us in our constituencies is under-age drinking. We have seen the problem increase over the years. It is particularly sad to see under-age drinking in public places, and it is an ever-increasing problem. New clause 81 sets out to address that unique problem. Consequently, if my hon. Friend is to tell me that, for technical reasons, he cannot accept new clause 77, he might consider that the under-age aspect of new clause 81 merits much more consideration. I am sure that he will realise and recognise the importance of addressing that nuisance and social problem.
      It will not be good enough for us to wring our hands and try to wish the matter away. All of us who take an interest in the well-being and welfare of the Scotch whisky industry recognise that it is awfully easy to blame it for the failings of individuals. I have to be careful because, as the House knows, I am teetotal. I do not want be looked on as the "unco' guid". That is the last type of image that I would wish to project.
      I believe that social drinking is a huge asset in a community. I must make that quite clear. I believe that alcoholic drink—however and wherever it is consumed, if it is done properly and does not create a nuisance for others —can be beneficial to the well-being of the community atmosphere.
      However, there will always be people who will ignore and put at risk the well-being of others, and will abuse the system. The Bill gave me and my hon. Friends the opportunity to do something about that. I hope that the Minister will say that he recognises that the problem cannot and will not be wished away, and that he recognises that it will have to be legislated away.
      We cannot expect that people whom we wish to change will change simply because we ask them to. Sadly, one of the great problems is that people who are subjected to the ghastly problem of an alcoholic disease are not the kind that one can chat to. Therefore, we must give powers to the local constabulary to remove those people if they are creating a nuisance in a public place.
      I recognise that the Minister might ask what would happen in the case of someone sitting outside a pub. If there were a table and four chairs outside a pub in Paris, everyone would know that they were part of the pub or café, but, if one sees a table and four chairs outside a pub in Scotland, one knows that a warrant sale is taking place —our pubs do not have tables and chairs outside. I
      216
      therefore believe that there is no risk of the public place, as defined in new clause 81, being mistaken for anything other than what was intended.
      New clause 81 has been deliberately worded to fit exactly what I call the Scottish domain:
      "'public place' means any place to which the public do or may have access which is not licensed premises in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976."
      If a country pub has a large garden, that garden will be recognised as part of the pub, which would not be the case with a park or any open space that the public use for recreational activities.
      Mr. George Kynoch: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's argument. He mentioned tourism and its importance to his constituency, and he will be aware that many overseas visitors come to our part of Scotland. They sometimes eat picnics on the way, and it is often the continental custom to have a bottle of wine with lunch. How would my hon. Friend deal with a tourist—not the driver of a car, but a passenger—having a glass of wine with a picnic lunch in a public place?
      Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I have to tell him that such a case could covered with no difficulty. If he examines the new clauses, he will find that they would give policemen the appropriate power.
      However, I do not believe that any policemen in Scotland's tourist areas would do anything to upset the tourist industry. More than any other group, the police help tourism in my area by being very helpful to visitors. I do not anticipate any problems in this respect. Indeed, I examined many such issues when considering how to word the new clauses, and it is why I had them worded as concisely and as clearly as I could.
      I am assured by the legal brains who know much more about such matters than I do that the new clauses are technically satisfactory. However, I accept that my hon. Friend the Minister must, on behalf of the Government, consider how to fit them in with the legislation as a whole. He may come back to me and suggest that, for some reason, the new clauses do not quite measure up, in which case I hope that he will be positive and say that the Government have something in mind to deal with the problem. I believe that the new clauses would deal with the problem, but I would understand if my hon. Friend the Minister were to tell me that, for technical reasons, he would like to travel another route.
      I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) for his helpful intervention. That is all I have to say at this stage, other than that I hope that the Minister will be able to make a constructive and positive reply.
      Mr. William McKelvey: Perhaps I, too, should declare an interest, as we have just heard the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) disclose his interest as vice-chairman of the Scotch whisky group. I, for my sins, chair the all-party Scotch whisky group, and we promote the industry wherever we can. Unlike my colleague, I have to confess that from time to time, and in moderation, I consume some of our national product, so I am not taking an anti-alcohol stance; I wish merely to highlight the problems in most of our city and town centres.

      217
      It has already been mentioned that the councils in Aberdeen and Dundee experimented by designating certain areas in which it would be an offence to drink in public. It was successful in those areas, but, as a by-product, it drove the people who had abused alcohol in the streets in those areas into the back streets and the housing schemes. So the inhabitants, especially those who live in housing schemes, have been lumbered with what we removed from the city centres and tourist spots.
      It is expected that, in other legislation to come before the House shortly, the laws on opening hours in Scotland on Sundays will be brought more into line with those in England, especially so that off-sales can open on Sundays during certain periods to sell liquor. That means that, in areas in which people are demented for six days of the week, they might well soon be demented for the seventh day, too, so some hon. Members are already expressing opposition to the measure.
      4 pm
      We had hoped that, if the Government took the provisions of the new clauses seriously on board, perhaps we could placate at least those hon. Members who fear the nuisance caused by people drinking alcohol in the housing schemes, and especially by under-age drinkers, because they could be controlled and the problem alleviated.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North said that he did not wish to be thought unco' guid—to use the term that Burns would use. As the two of us bear the same christian name, that reminds me of "Holy Willie's Prayer". Not only has a Conservative Member introduced the new clause., but now another hon. Member who is interested in the alcohol trade and who confesses to consuming alcohol in moderation, but who understands the problems, especially for householders who have to put up with the menace week after week, day in and day out, is speaking in favour. I understand why such people resist the idea of the off-licence in their housing scheme being allowed to open more.
      I hope that Ministers will be able to conceive of a way of giving licensing authorities more extensive powers to designate areas—perhaps areas of particular nuisance—where opening should not be allowed on Sundays. In a former life, I was chairman of a licensing committee, and I had the dubious distinction of having managed to award the first licence to a pavement public house, in as much as the owner of the public house also owned part of the pavement and could put out tables and chairs on it. At the time, that caused an uproar in Dundee, because people thought that it would be the ultimate in degradation.
      Mr. John McAllion: The weather?
      Mr. McKelvey: Not only the weather. But I recall that, one bright summer, there were only three days on which anyone was prepared to sit outside to sip their lager. Anyway, what happened was not the horror story that people feared.
      If we dignify and humanise the activities of people who consume alcohol, that will assist the areas of the trade that the hon. Member for Tayside, North described as the reasonable and interested bodies that prepare and sell alcohol. They, too, are concerned about alcohol abuse, and supply not only information but funds to ensure that the information reaches the public.
      I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously and that, if the new clauses are not acceptable in
      218
      their present form, he will at least accept the spirit—perhaps I should not use that word, so I shall say that I hope that he will accept their intention. The intention is to solve a problem and to ease the passage of a forthcoming piece of legislation, for the sake of those who wish, mainly honourably, for access to alcohol through off-licences and supermarkets on Sundays in Scotland.
      Mr. McAllion: May I make a hat trick of hon. Members declaring their interest? You have heard, Madam Speaker, from the chairman and the vice-chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. You are now hearing from the secretary of the group. I probably tend towards the chairman's position in relation to the consumption of alcohol, rather than to the vice-chairman's position.
      Hon. Members should understand that we are not trying by means of the new clause to ban social drinking in public places. We are not against people having a drink when they attend a fete, go to the highland games or have a picnic in a park, when they may want a glass of wine with their meal.
      We are trying to address the problem of those who cause a nuisance to other people by drinking, whether on the street in the centre of towns or in housing schemes in Scotland, especially in the peripheral housing estates which surround most cities in Scotland. There is a problem there of people drinking outside off-licences and causing a severe nuisance to people who live adjacent to the off-licence.
      I have always believed that it is nonsense that, in Scotland, it should be an offence for someone under 18 to go into an off-licence to purchase liquor and an offence for an adult to go into an off-licence to purchase liquor on behalf of someone who is under 18, but that it is not an offence for someone under 18 to stand outside the off-licence and consume alcoholic liquor. If some of the neighbours called the police and said that there were youngsters drinking wine—fortified wine, not the French variety—nothing could be done. The police would say that the youngsters were not committing an offence, and that there was nothing that they could do.
      Years ago, I brought the problem to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for cotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He responded by saying that the Government had pilot projects in Scotland, one of which was in Dundee, under which it was an offence for anyone to consume liquor in certain areas. He said that the Scottish Office would see how the pilot schemes worked out and would then make a decision about what changes to the law would be made.
      The Minister has peddled that line for a number of years. It is time that we stopped waiting for the outcome of the pilot projects. The Government should get off their backside and start to do something about the problem, which is serious for many people living in cities.
      I know that such schemes are not the perfect solution, because I know what happened in Dundee. We were able to clear away from the centre of the city the people who sat drinking strong lagers and fortified wines. However, they went to the top of Hilltown and sat on the benches that were meant for mothers whose toddlers were using the swings. They sat there drinking, and mothers and toddlers were frightened to go into the parks. It is not a solution simply to say that we should extend the area to cover the whole city.

      219
      We know that people who have drink problems—who suffer from alcoholism—will not be cured simply because we make it an offence to drink alcohol in public places. All we shall do is drive those people into areas where they think that they will not be discovered. They will go under bridges and into parks. They will find derelict sites and they may go into subways which take people under busy roads. They will sit and drink there, in the hope that they will not be suspected.
      Although I hope that the Minister pays attention to the points in the new clauses, I also hope that he will realise that they are not a solution, and that they may simply create a different kind of problem in a different area of Scottish cities.
      I am especially concerned about new clause 81, which specifically makes it an offence for anyone under the age of 18 to consume alcoholic liquor in a public place in Scotland. During the Easter recess, I was asked by one of the detached youth workers who work in my constituency to visit an area of Dundee called Mid Craigie, and to speak to about a dozen youngsters in the area about the problems facing people under 21 who live in schemes in which there are high levels of unemployment and poverty.
      I spoke to the youngsters, and it immediately became obvious that one of the major reasons why they turned to drink—and to drugs, in some cases—was that there was nothing for them to do in their area. No facilities were available in their area specifically for young people.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) knows Dundee well, so he knows that Mid Craigie is adjacent to Whitfield. He knows that there is a community centre there, and he may say, "Why do the youngsters from Mid Craigie not go to the community centre in Whitfield and get involved in a useful pursuit there?"
      Such matters are very territorial when people are young. People living in Mid Craigie would never go to Whitfield to attend a function, because they would be frightened that they would be attacked by the local youths; the same is true of the idea that people from Whitfield would go to Mid Craigie. That is true of any area of any Scottish city. Kids need facilities in their own areas if they are to be attracted away from drugs, drinking and other illegal activities.
      The same goes for the city centre. It is okay to provide discos and youth centres in the centre of Dundee, but many youngsters do not have the price of a bus fare to get into the centre. If they cannot afford the entrance fees to the discos, they will try to do something else in their own area.
      Unfortunately, in Scotland today, a number of off-licences, especially in the peripheral housing schemes in our cities, are stocking up on the kind of drinks which get people drunk quickly and which are targeted directly at the young. Drinks such as Diamond White and Diamond Blush—fortified types of drink which are meant to get people drunk quickly—are being stocked in the hope that under-age people will go into the off-licences to buy them.
      Even the very suggestion, which is often made, that people should drink from the neck of the bottle rather than out of a glass, and that it is meant to be a designer way in which to drink, as seen in all the advertisements in the alcohol industry, is meant to get people drunk faster. If one drinks directly from the bottle, the alcohol gets into one's bloodstream more quickly.
      220
      There is a serious problem, so we must tackle the root cause of young people turning to drink or drugs. One of the main reasons is the way in which the House has treated young people for a considerable number of years. There is rampant youth unemployment in all our cities.
      I know that the Minister will say that there is a youth training place available for every youngster who wants one between the ages of 16 and 18. He should come to Dundee and speak to the youngsters that I spoke to, some of whom are 19 and have gone through that age bracket without ever being offered any youth training place. They have never been given a place or the chance to make a mark in the economy.
      As a result, those youngsters had to apply for severe hardship allowances, which many were denied because of the strict criteria set to qualify for them. As a result, they did not receive housing benefit or income support, and many felt that there was no alternative but to turn to crime, or to take to drink or drugs, and the only place they could do that was outside off-licences in the city.
      While I support the idea of cracking down on those people who cause a social nuisance in our society, especially in Scotland, I support even more the Government beginning to draw attention to the problems facing young people in the cities in Scotland, to those youngsters' lack of opportunity, to the poverty that affects young people in Scotland, and to the fact that they have few rights. It is high time the Government began to treat young people as equal members of our society. If they did, we might not need such debates in the House.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)? I was in another meeting, and I literally had to gallop to get here. Given my advanced age, that is not perhaps the wisest thing to do.
      I happily added my name to the new clauses, because in my constituency there are three localities where a great deal of public drinking takes place. The Minister visited one of the those areas—not for the purpose of public drinking, but to look at the poor housing and some of the fine housing renovation which is taking place. I am referring to the east end of Greenock, where my constituents were pleased that the Minister made time to come along.
      Many of the people who indulge in such public drinking suffer from alcohol abuse. May I catch the Minister's attention for a moment, if the Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), could keep quiet for a second?
      What guidance is given to the police to deal with that public drinking, which is a terrible nuisance to ordinary, decent people who are out shopping or are in the streets for lawful and legitimate purposes? Those drinkers, who are often heavy drinkers, can become extremely aggressive and abusive when in drink. I am grateful to the Whip for looking after me in that redcap style of his.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: Redcoat.
      Dr. Godman: Yes, a red coat would be more appropriate with that sun tan. May I return to more serious matters? I only wish that the Whip would stop clowning about.
      In dealing with the problems related to public drinking, not only by youngsters but by men and women of all ages, what is the Government's current proposal for designated

      221
      places? In terms of dealing with public drinking by people suffering from alcohol abuse and misuse, designated places play an important role.
      I also ask the Minister what financial assistance the Scottish Office is giving to Inverclyde council, and, indeed, other councils, with regard to alcoholism. They do fine work in dealing with those who suffer the terrible plight of alcohol misuse and abuse. If the Minister cannot accept the new clauses, his officials and representatives from the police forces in such areas where drinking in public takes place need to get together to tackle much more effectively than hitherto that terrible public nuisance, while at the same time protecting those who suffer from the terrible illness of alcohol abuse and misuse.
      4.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): As a former military policeman, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will appreciate that many of these matters are for the operational discretion of police officers on the spot. Of course, the chief constable of Strathclyde will be aware of that. We have not given him specific guidance on these matters, but we take seriously the issues involved with the health and education of young people.
      Obviously, I am very much against drinking to excess in any form. We are concerned about health, and the consequences of drinking to excess. We must influence young people positively about the use of alcohol, and highlight the health and other consequences associated with its misuse.
      At present, many Scottish schools tackle alcohol issues within the context of comprehensive health and social education programmes. The Scottish Office, the Health Education Board for Scotland, the Scottish Council on Alcohol and health boards are also involved, and parents have a fundamental role in the education of their children.
      Mr. McAllion rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that we have given an increased allocation of £138,000 this year to the Scottish Council on Alcohol. The council will be assisting with these matters with particular reference to young people.
      Mr. McAllion: The Minister mentioned education about alcohol in our schools. Can he tell the House when that education programme begins in schools in Scotland? Representatives of the alcohol project that is currently working in Whitfield, Mid Craigie and Linlathen in my constituency told me recently that they have evidence that children as young as eight and nine are beginning to drink or to experiment with drink. Will such an education programme go into primary schools as well as secondary schools?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman makes the territorial point that, whereas action is being taken in Whitfield, that may not apply with equal strength in Mid Craigie. I shall certainly make inquiries on that point.
      I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the byelaws with regard to Dundee, where he is from, have been confirmed by the Scottish Office. Indeed, we are taking action. It is for local authorities to come forward with proposals, and the
      222
      Scottish Office will process them as quickly as possible. We are already taking action on a large number of fronts. We recognise that the problem of under-age drinking needs to be tackled on several fronts.
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way when I have developed my argument and explained what we are doing on byelaws.
      For example, we have made it an offence for any person to buy alcohol or to sell it to a person under the age of 18, and for a person under the age of 18 to buy alcohol for his or any other person's consumption. We already have powers and penalties to deal with unacceptable behaviour which is, rightly, associated with drinking in public places.
      Offences have been introduced relatively recently in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 covering, first, drunk and incapable behaviour; secondly, obstruction of the lawful passage of another person in a public place; thirdly, acts of vandalism; and fourthly, the banning of alcohol from sporting events.
      There have been a number of other law and order measures, such as tightening up the giving of late-night licences. In addition, behaviour likely to cause alarm or annoyance can constitute the common law crime of breach of the peace, and the penalties available to the courts for these offences include sizeable fines and imprisonment.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I would not have tabled these new clauses if I had considered that the byelaws were working effectively. The designated places experience in Dundee has demonstrated that, while one can remove the problem from the areas that are designated, there is nothing now in statute that allows Dundee city council to deal with all the other areas that people have gone to. Therein lies the problem.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the problem that my hon. Friend mentions—that the successful introduction of a byelaw can displace the problem to a neighbouring area. I can only suggest that, when local authorities consider byelaw applications, they also consider whether they wish to extend the areas concerned to cover displacement. If there is clear justification for such an extension, it may be helpful to do so. Local authorities are free to come forward with proposals in the matter.
      As for the proposals that we have put before local authorities about byelaws, we have asked them to consider making byelaws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in designated public places, and have invited them to put forward proposals.
      Such byelaws have been very successful in Motherwell and Dundee, and they have been specifically targeted at particular trouble spots. They offer a useful means of combating the problem of behaviour by people of all ages, and have been widely welcomed. The maximum penalty for breaching the byelaws is £500. I hope that more local authorities throughout Scotland will come forward with proposals, which, as I have already confirmed, we will process quickly.
      Dr. Godman: On the question of under-age drinking, is the Minister trying to tell the House that he is satisfied with the measures employed by his officials and others in dealing with the activities of unscrupulous off-licensees

      223
      who will sell booze, if they can get away with it, to kids of any age? I do not believe that the measures currently in force are tough enough to cope with these dealers.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about offences that are being committed. It is a question of evidence. When the evidence is available, the police are in a position to take it forward. It is exactly the same with glue sniffing. When products that can be misused are sold across the counter illegally, it should be reported to the police and action should be taken.
      We have no plans to introduce a general offence prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in public places by people of any age, or specifically by people under 18. The reason is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch): an absolute ban on drinking in public places would penalise innocent activities, such as family picnics and other occasions, where public consumption of alcohol is perfectly acceptable.
      It would be a draconian measure to introduce a general offence, as not all of Scotland has entirely the same problems or suffers them to the same extent. The way forward is through byelaws. A whole range of legislative penalties is already in place to combat disorderly conduct and behaviour associated with drinking in public places, such as rowdyism.
      To mention a very obvious point, I am in the business of encouraging tourism in Scotland. It would discourage tourism to put in place a total ban, as suggested, which could relate to picnics, beach parties, fetes and so on.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Nonsense.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend says, "Nonsense," but it would penalise innocent activities such as family picnics, and that is going far too far. Although this is essentially a technical matter, the new clauses are flawed in that they propose offences without associated penalty provisions. In view of the range of measures that have been put forward by the Scottish Office to combat the problems associated with drinking—including under-age drinking in public—I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Some of the things that my hon. Friend said were not terribly helpful. I remind him that we have laws on statute in Scotland where instructions have been given to the police to practise the application of those laws in what is deemed to be a favourable manner to the community. There is nothing odd about the police having such discretion—it happens all the time. In particular, it has given me cause for concern about certain homosexual activities in my constituency with regard to discretion. [Interruption.] I say that because I am pointing to the fact that a statute exists, and the police and procurators have been given guidance about not pressing prosecutions.
      My hon. Friend suggests to me that, in a tourist area— I yield to no one in the House in the defence of tourist interests—Tayside police would behave in a manner that would upset tourists. That is not living in the real world. I hope that the pedants who wrote my hon. Friend's reply would remember that those of us who are constituency Members live in the real world.
      224
      I recognise that byelaws have a part to play. My concern is that in city such as Dundee—I refer to Dundee because experiments have been carried out there—it is difficult constantly to change the designated areas if those involved keep moving. We may be forced into designating the doors and entrances to every off-licence and supermarket, and anywhere else that sells alcoholic liquor. There are real problems.
      I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I will not press the new clauses to a Division because I recognise that there are technical reasons why they could not become law. I understand that changes would have been required even if the vote had been won. I hope that the debate has at least brought the problem, as hon. Members see and experience it, to the attention of the Government and their advisers. Those who want enlightened laws on licensing to come into practice also want to deal with the problems with drinking.
      I hope that the Scottish Office will realise that the matter will not go away. We will continue to pursue it because, until we find satisfactory answers, our constituents will continually press us to do something about it. Having put that on record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    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.'.— [Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 96

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 170 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988
      '.-In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the words—
      "(7A) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of having committed an offence under this section..—[Mr. Vaz.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I do not wish to detain the House for very long on this matter. I have had discussions with the Minister and I am delighted to say that he has agreed to meet a delegation of my constituents to discuss the issue of hit-and-run drivers, and the power of the police to arrest those responsible for such activities.
      I pay tribute to the Leicester Mercury, my local newspaper, which launched the Campaign for Justice, and to Mr. Carter, the editor, who took up the issue of the lack of police powers to deal with those responsible for hit-and-run offences. As the law stands, offenders can be brought to justice only by a summons, unless another serious offence is committed at the same time.

      225
      I came prepared with many cuttings from the Leicester Mercury, describing the huge number of incidents during the past few years. Pregnant women have been knocked down, and hit-and-run drivers have disappeared, and the police have had no powers to deal with such offences. Last year, I introduced the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill to change the law, but the Government opposed that measure. I hope that the Campaign for Justice will be successful.
      4.30pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has also been extremely helpful. He and the Minister persuaded me that the matter should be considered in great detail at a later stage, rather than tacked on to this long Bill. I am happy to accept the assurances by both colleagues that they will consider the matter carefully. I therefore do not intend to press the clause to a vote, because I believe that the climate and conditions for a rational discussion of this important matter exist.
      Finally, I am grateful to the Police Federation for its support. It wanted an amendment tabled to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I was not able to do so, because time has moved on, but I hope that we can have a sensible discussion, and that new measures will be proposed later this year.
      Mr. Alun Michael: I shall be extremely brief. The House and the Minister would be wise to heed such a potent combination as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), the Leicester Mercury and the Police Federation when there is a call for a change in the law.
      Surely it is an anomaly that such a serious offence can be dealt with only by summons. I hope that, by dealing with the callousness shown by those involved in hit-and-run offences, this is one of the occasions when we can agree across the Chamber about the need to amend the law swiftly.
      I am happy to be able to respond to the comments of my hon. Friend, and to tell the Minister that the Opposition will be happy to assist in the process, and to be as helpful as we can if the Minister is able to find a way to respond positively and quickly to hon. Friend's eloquent plea.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government's view is that the police have adequate powers of arrest for offences related to road accidents. Since I have agreed to meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and to discuss the matter in the Home Office, where I hope that I will be able to explain to him and to any of his constituents he wishes to bring why I think that the present powers are adequate, I do not propose to go into them at the Dispatch Box today.
      Mr. Vaz: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 101

      CERTIFICATION OF PRISONS
      'The Secretary of State shall at least once in each year certify in respect of each prison, remand centre and young offender institution—

      (a) the certified normal accommodation of the prison, remand centre or young offender institution, that is. to say the number of prisoners who can be satisfactorily accommodated in cells and dormitories; and

      226

      (b) the certified regime capacity, that is to say the number of prisoners for which the prison can provide an acceptable regime.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Through the clause we want to make a positive contribution to resolving the major problem of prison overcrowding. We propose that once each year the Home Secretary shall
      "certify in respect of each prison, remand centre and young offender institution"
      the normal accommodation of that institution. By that we mean
      "the number of prisoners who can be satisfactorily accommodated in cells and dormitories".
      Secondly, we want the Home Secretary to state, at least once each year, the certified regime capacity—the number of prisoners for which an acceptable regime can be provided. I emphasise the word "acceptable" as it is crucial to any understanding of the dangers of prisons at present. Governors warn that overcrowding is pushing prisons ever closer to explosion point. The House of Commons should respond to their warnings by finding a mechanism to deal with the problem.
      The Minister who responded to the corresponding debate in Committee ridiculed the amendment that we had tabled. He said, basically, that requiring the Home Secretary to come to the House to request permission to go above certified numbers would be too bureaucratic and would cause too much delay. We have been constructive in our response and have come up with a very simple proposal, which would require the Home Secretary merely to look at the situation in each prison every year. He would have to take account not only of the accommodation provided but of the possibility of dealing properly with prisoners. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is responding to this debate will be more positive in respect of some of these issues than was his hon. Friend who, replying in Committee, said:
      "The aim of the prison service is to house prisoners, without overcrowding, in accommodation close to their home area, but it must find suitably secure accommodation for those committed to custody by the courts. Those aims may be in conflict at times." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 March 1994; c. 1246.]
      We understand that there will be conflict between aims. Hence the need for a resolution mechanism and for accountability to Parliament with regard to the way in which the Home Secretary reconciles the different demands. The surprising thing about the response that I have just quoted is that it contains no mention of reform. The Minister did not say anything about the need to provide appropriate psychiatric treatment and education —the type of regime that leads to reform. The hon. Gentleman seemed to regard this as merely an exercise in numbers rather than as an exercise in the reform of prisoners.
      Over the past year, prison numbers have shot up. In the first 11 months of 1993, the total increased by 16 per cent. That is an average of nearly 600 a month. The number of remand prisoners rose by 44 per cent. in that period, while the number of prisoners under 21 years of age increased by 22 per cent. I can bring some of that information up to date by saying that on Friday 18 March, there were 48,571 people in prison and 522 in police cells. I warn the House

      227
      that the holding in cells of people who ought to be in prison is another demonstration of the failure of the system to work properly.
      Several consequences flow from prisoner numbers. The Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Derek Lewis, tells us that the atmosphere in the prisons following the recent sharp increase in numbers is more volatile than at any time since the Strangeways riots of 1990. In his submission to the inquiry following those riots, the then director general referred to overcrowding as the single factor that dominated prisoners' lives, produced often intolerable pressure on staff and, as a consequence, soured industrial relations, skewed managerial effort and diverted management away from positive developments. In his report on the riots, Lord Justice Woolf unreservedly endorsed this assessment of the effect of overcrowding. He said:
      "Overcrowding is felt most sharply in the Victorian-built city centre prisons, which always bear the brunt of rising numbers."
      I pay tribute to the governors and prison officers who have to cope in these establishments. I refer in particular to Cardiff prison, which is on the border of my constituency.
      Our amendment would not prevent the Government from squeezing extra prisoners into the gaols, but it would require them to state an upper limit. They would have to give careful thought to the question of the number of people that they could afford to allow to be accommodated in a prison without putting at risk the key role of the reform of offenders.
      It is pointless to run a prison service in such a way that, in the long term, prisoners are more likely to offend again when they are released and, in the short term, the safety of prison staff is put at risk. Overcrowding results in cramped and unpleasant physical conditions. It also results in restricted regimes, as overcrowded prisons do not have the space, facilities or resources to provide prisoners with a full range of training, work and educational opportunities.
      Judge Stephen Tumim, Chief Inspector of Prisons, commented in his annual report for 1991-92—so this reference relates to the immediate position:
      "Local prisons for men do not offer sufficient time out of cell or a satisfactory range of opportunities. Those we visited in 1991/92 remained overcrowded and invariably short of space. The number of inmates held in local prisons should be determined not by the number of beds that can be crammed in but by the facilities available to contain people decently and provide them with out of cell activity."
      That is why the new clause deals with both those requirements.
      Lord Justice Woolf said in his report on prison disturbances:
      "It is also clear from the evidence which the Inquiry has received from prisoners, that the conditions which exist at present in our prisons cause a substantial number of prisoners to leave prison more embittered and hostile to society than when they arrived. They leave prison, therefore, in a state of mind where they are more likely to re-offend."
      In an atmosphere in which the Home Secretary has used the one-line slogan "prison works" we should pay more attention to ensuring that prisons work effectively in reforming those sent to them. That is how to ensure that prisons work, not simply by cramming in numbers without thought. Overcrowding is a recipe not only for re-offending on release but for rioting in prisons. Many
      228
      recent reports have underlined the fact that it increases tension and frustration among those forced to live cheek by jowl in cramped conditions.
      We should pay particular attention to the comments of the chairman of the Prison Governors' Association, Mr. Brendan O'Friel. At the association's recent conference, he said:
      "We are building up a significant number of prisoners with a justifiable grudge against the Prison Service for moving them so far away from home … Steps must be taken to bring this to an end or it will bring trouble within our prisons."
      We should heed that warning because of the threat of danger not only within our prisons but back on the streets. He went on to say:
      "Overcrowded prisons are unhealthy places, far more likely to turn out embittered, hardened and contaminated individuals. Overcrowding reduces the opportunities for staff to combat contamination. It makes it very difficult for staff to put in place positive programmes to encourage prisoners to face up to offending."
      Note the words "to face up"—not to give easy conditions but to force prisoners to face up to what they have done and the harm that they have caused to society. He then said:
      "I appeal in the strongest possible terms to those in the rest of the criminal justice system to recognise that if the rise in the prison population continues, the whole criminal justice system could be plunged into chaos."
      4.45 pm
      He added:
      if the population rise continues, the risks we will have to face of further disturbances are fast becoming unacceptable."
      The new clause will not solve those problems, but will ensure that Ministers account to Parliament for how they run the Prison Service. It will ensure that Parliament has before it information on the assessment made by Ministers of whether the institutions can cope with numbers and can ensure that prisoners are returned to society less likely to offend and create new victims. That is why it is such an important new clause, and I commend it to the House.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The new clause would require an annual reassessment of living accommodation and regime capacity across the entire prison service. Currently, reassessment is carried out whenever there are changes in living units, such as after refurbishment. That is a practical and flexible arrangement. Furthermore, Prison Service area managers have a continuing responsibility to satisfy themselves that living accommodation in the prisons in their areas meets the requirements of the Prison Act 1952, so nothing would be gained in practice by accepting the first part of the new clause, other than extra bureaucracy.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seemed to be unaware of the figure for certified normal accommodation. We know it for each prison. We are responsible to Parliament for it under the Prison Act 1952, which is why I have published regularly, in answers to questions from hon. Members, the CNA figure and the population by total service, individual prisons or prisons in particular regions. So information is readily available if ever the hon. Gentleman cares to ask for it. Indeed, he would find it if he looked back in recent editions of Hansard.
      The regime capacity is a new concept. It would not, I fear, be an objective measure, but would depend on facilities, type of prison and prisoner, and availability of staff, which can vary heavily with, for example, the demand for court escorts. Despite the recent growth in the

      229
      prison population, however, purposeful activity has increased over the past year. Moreover, the new Prison Service operating standards that will be issued to governors shortly will help them to deliver more uniform and higher standards against which they will be individually judged. Each prison governor will have a contract with his area manager on how he will meet those standards during the coming year.
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that the current arrangements and procedures to which he has just referred will obtain in Scotland? Although our prisoners do not suffer from overcrowding to the same extent as south of the border, overcrowding is a problem.
      Mr. Lloyd: I cannot speak with authority on how accommodation available is certificated in Scotland. All that I can do is pass on the hon. Gentleman's inquiry to my colleague at the Scottish Office and ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a reply. If I endeavour to reply here, I might get it wrong if a difference exists in the methodology in England and Wales and in Scotland.
      As I was saying, capacity is a novel concept which it would be hard to measure objectively. Indeed, I am certain that it could not be measured objectively because it varies for a number of reasons, such as resources and availability of staff. It needs to differ from prison to prison, according to the prison's nature, facilities and type of prisoners. However, despite the recent growth in prison population, the regime activities have tended to improve. Last year, the amount of time spent out of cells in purposeful activity increased yet again.
      I understand why the clause has been tabled. It is important to ensure that standards of accommodation and regime are kept under close scrutiny. I hope that what I have said persuades the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the arrangements and new operating standards meet that proper objective. He seems to have the impression that overcrowding has been increasing over a long period in the prison service. It has not. The number of prisoners has grown sharply over the past year after a decline. We now have about the same number of prisoners as we had four years ago, but, because of the Government's prison-building programme, they are, on the whole, much less overcrowded than they were. In much of the Prison Service, there is no overcrowding.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke particularly of numbers in local prisons where, for many years, most of the pressure has been found. That is because local prisons have little room for expansion in town centres near the courts. They must house those sent to prison by the courts while they are on trial or remand. The only quick way of reducing overcrowding in those prisons is to move the prisoners elsewhere in the system, producing exactly the effect that the hon. Gentleman complained of—prisoners housed in prisons far away from their homes. Our prison building programme is designed to ensure that there is a sufficiency of places throughout the country where they are needed.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will support the Government when we seek to build prisons in places where there is great local resistance—as of course there is at Fazakerley at the moment. In this case, the local population does not want a prison, but prisoners from Merseyside need an extra prison if they are not to be dispersed in large numbers across the rest of the country as happens now. I hope that we can count on the hon.
      230
      Gentleman's support in the matter. Judging by what he said, he ought to give his support and I hope that he will put his backing where his sentiments appear to lie.
      Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister does not seem to realise that there is an increase in the use of police cells to hold prisoners. He does not seem to be heeding the warnings, which are growing louder, being given to the Government from many quarters. We do not need more information from the Minister; we need more accountability.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has ensured both the availability of information about this issue and an analysis of that information which shows the Government's shortcomings in this area. The Home Secretary needs to concentrate his mind on the regime in prison and the outcome of holding people in prison. The Home Secretary needs to listen to those who are involved in the Prison Service, including prison governors and prison officers. Our new clause will ensure that more listening and thinking takes place and, for that reason, we press it to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 281.

      Division No. 198]

      [4.51 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allen, Graham

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Alton, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cox, Tom

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ashton, Joe

      Dafis, Cynog

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barnes, Harry

      Darling, Alistair

      Barron, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Battle, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beggs, Roy

      Denham, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Dewar, Donald

      Bell, Stuart

      Dixon, Don

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dobson, Frank

      Benton, Joe

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Betts, Clive

      Enright, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Blunkett, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fisher, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Byers, Stephen

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Caborn, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Callaghan, Jim

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Galloway, George

      Cann, Jamie

      Gapes, Mike

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      George, Bruce

      Clapham, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clelland, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Coffey, Ann

      Griffiths, Win (Blidgend)

      Connarty, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      231

      Hain, Peter

      Mudie, George

      Hall, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Brein, William (Normanton)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Heppell, John

      Olner, William

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Orme,Rt Hon Stanley

      Hoey, Kate

      Parry, Robert

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Patchett, Terry

      Home Robertson, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pike, Peter L.

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pope, Greg

      Hoyle, Doug

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hutton, John

      Radice, Giles

      Ingram, Adam

      Randall, Stuart

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Rendel, David

      Jamieson, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Janner, Greville

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Moôn)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Ross, william (E Londonderry)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jowell, Tessa

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Salmond, Alex

      Keen, Alan

      Sedgemore, Brain

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Short, Clare

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Livingstone, Ken

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Soley, Clive

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Spellar, John

      McAllion, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Stevenson, George

      McFall, John

      Stott, Roger

      McKelvey, William

      Straw, Jack

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McLeish, Henry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Trimble, David

      McMaster, Gordon

      Turner, Dennis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Tyler, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Madden, Max

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Mahon, Alice

      Wallace, James

      Mandelson, Peter

      Walley, Joan

      Marek, Dr John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Watson, Mike

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Martlew, Eric

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Maxton, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Meale, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wilson, Brian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Winnick, David

      Milburn, Alan

      Wise, Audrey

      Miller, Andrew

      Worthington, Tony

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      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. John Gunnell.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      232

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Evennett, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Faber, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Amess, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Arbuthnot, James

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Ashby, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Atkins, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Baker, Nicholas Dorset North)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Baldry, Tony

      French, Douglas

      Banks, Matthwe (Southport)

      Gale, Roger

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gallie, Phil

      Bates, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Batiste, Spencer

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Garnier, Edward

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gill, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gillen, Cheryl

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gorst, John

      Booth, Hartley

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bowis, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hague, William

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bright, Graham

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Cash, William

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hicks, Robert

      Clappison, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Congdon, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knapman, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Eggar, Tim

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

      Elletson, Harold

      Knox, Sir David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      233

      Legg, Barry

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Leigh, Edward

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sackville, Tom

      Lidington, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lord, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Speed, Sir Keith

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maclean, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spring, Richard

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      Madel, Sir David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Malone, Gerald

      Stephen, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Allan

      Marland, Paul

      Streeter, Gary

      Marlow, Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sykes, John

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thomason, Roy

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

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

      Needham, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tredinnick, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Viggers, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waller, Gary

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Page, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Watts, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wells, Bowen

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Ray

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Whittingdale, John

      Pawsey, James

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Pickles, Eric

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Willetts, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Richards, Rod

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Riddick, Graham

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 104

      CAUTIONING FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS
      `(1) Within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall publish regulations under which the police may administer a caution to offenders under the age of 18 years, the terms of which may include such arrangements as are considered appropriate for their supervision and support.
      (2) The terms of arrangements set out in any caution made under subsection (1) above shall require local arrangements to

      (a) be drawn up in consultation with and require the consent of the local authority; and

      234

      (b) require the consent of the child or young person and their parent or guardian.

      (3) A caution under this clause shall be administered by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above in the presence of a social worker or other appropriate representative of the local authority.
      (4) Cautions shall normally be administered under this section only when the child or young person has previously been cautioned under existing arrangements.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The initiative contained in the new clause should have been at the heart of the Bill if the Government were really interested in cutting crime. Our proposal would lead to faster intervention when youngsters start to commit crime, instead of what the Government have been doing—waving a big stick and doing far too little, too late. Of course, it is necessary to have punishments available for those who carry on offending and flout the law, but a sensible society intervenes quickly to prevent matters getting out of hand. We need to tackle the causes of bad behaviour as well as the behaviour itself, which is what our proposal would do.
      For some time, the Labour party has demanded action to stop inappropriate repeat cautioning. Young people need to know that something will happen when they break the law. But the Home Secretary has simply put a cap on cautioning without putting anything effective in its place. Cautioning usually works—according to Home Office figures, 85 per cent. of those cautioned are not convicted of a further offence within two years, compared with just 19 per cent. of 14-year-olds discharged from custody. We need a fast, firm, fair and effective mode of action to deal with the 13 to 15 per cent. of young offenders who do not respond to a caution.
      Most people would agree that when their own children do something wrong, they punish them, correct them or take action immediately—today rather than tomorrow, or even next week. They do not let things drift on for months, which is what happens far too often under our criminal justice system.
      We have put forward a three-point plan for dealing with young offenders. First, we propose to speed up the process so that youngsters are given a formal caution by being brought before a senior police officer in days rather than weeks. Secondly, we propose a new "cautioning plus" system, with positive action to divert youngsters away from criminal activity, and to help parents and teachers get a grip on the roots of lawbreaking. Thirdly, we propose to speed up the juvenile justice system so that, where cautioning fails or serious offences are involved, youngsters are brought to court and dealt with in weeks rather than months.
      We have pressed the Government on that on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, the Government did not respond positively to that suggestion in Committee.
      The new clause would require the Home Secretary to build on best practice and publish regulations that would encourage and develop the process of "cautioning plus". I have seen such schemes in a number of places around the country, including South Glamorgan in my area, and there is evidence of such schemes in Newcastle and East Sussex. Schemes are starting to work well, based on inter-agency co-operation and direct communication between police officers, social workers, schools and youth workers rather than a bureaucratic paper chase.

      235
      We need the Government to recognise the need for that system to be made available everywhere. The Government should agree to a mechanism that can be triggered immediately where the police have evidence of reoffending by a youngster who has already been cautioned once only. Details of the offence and the youngster's own circumstances should be discussed between the police and a senior social worker, as well as with the child and parents. If it is a suitable case for "cautioning plus", a proposed programme should be designed for that individual, taking into account home circumstances, school attendance and any other relevant factors.
      The requirements of the programme that follows should be tailored to the individual and, in some circumstances, might involve close monitoring of school attendance, and involvement in leisure-time and weekend activities. There should be treatment or help for problems involving drugs, alcohol or solvent misuse—far too often, solvent misuse is overlooked. As long ago as when the Standing Committee was dealing with what became the Criminal Justice Act 1991, I was pressing the Government to accept the need for action. Solvent misuse is often associated with offending. Special attention should be paid to overcoming lack of achievement at school. A variety of other approaches could also be adopted.
      Instead of allowing the youngster to be drawn into the criminal justice system and allowing delay, as soon as a second offence occurs it should trigger action. That action should involve intervention to make the youngster and the family face up to the fact that offending behaviour has started and take a grip on the causes and roots of that behaviour.
      In those circumstances, provided that the youngster admits the offence and he and his parents undertake to follow the proposed programme, the caution would be administered by a senior police officer in the presence of parents and the social worker who would oversee the programme. It might be appropriate for other persons, such as somebody from the youngster's school, to be involved. Such flexibility would not be difficult to arrange.
      It would be made clear to the youngster and to his parents that they have the right to refuse the programme and/or to deny the offence, in which case prosecution in the youth court would follow in the usual way and nothing would be lost. The advantage of formalising such an approach in the way that the new clause seeks is that there would be far quicker intervention in dealing with the root causes of offending behaviour, instead of waiting until it is too late.
      The majority of cautions are given to first-time offenders. Home Office figures indicate that 79 per cent. of cautioned juveniles are first offenders. In some cases—this is where the new clause would help—a second caution can be justifiable when combined with additional action to divert the young person from further crime.
      I have worked with youngsters in a number of inner-city and council house areas and specifically with young offenders, so I know from experience that it is possible to divert many youngsters from criminal activity. Many would not offend if something was done early enough to deal with the conditions in which they are growing up and the influences that bear on them. Often, it is not enough to say that it is for parents to deal with the situation. We know
      236
      the day-to-day pressures on ourselves and our children. I speak as a father of five children, and I know of the pressure that society places on us.
      In an inner-city area or on an estate, drugs, glue sniffing or truancy can be the norm rather than the exception. The parents themselves may be inadequate or subject to a variety of pressures. There may be poverty in the family, as happens all too often. In such circumstances, fast and positive intervention is a blessing to society as well as to families. Initiatives could include referring the young person and his family to family support organisations for help and guidance, the encouragement of an apology and, where practicable and desired by the victim, some form of reparation. Help could also be given with accommodation or basic education problems, pre-employment training and alcohol or drug abuse.
      Such assistance can make an enormous difference to offending and in helping to avoid the increase in the number of victims that will occur if a youngster's offending behaviour is allowed to blossom in the way that is all too often allowed at present.
      The involvement of young people in constructive youth and leisure activities can offer something more attractive than offending behaviour—not as a reward for punishment but as a challenge, to draw youngsters into adopting more positive activities.
      The use of befriending by adult volunteers can help to exercise a positive influence on the young person. It is not developed earlier enough or often enough in dealing with offenders.
      The new clause does nothing to diminish the alternatives and options available to courts in the punishment of young offenders as they go up the scale. It does nothing to undermine secure accommodation or other forms of institutional treatment, when those are necessary. It will enable those facilities to be targeted more quickly and directly at youngsters who fail to respond to the approach that I propose.
      Research shows that 87 per cent. of youngsters respond to a caution by not reoffending. If we could cut from the 13 per cent. who offend a second time and more a further proportion of youngsters, as I believe we could, that would leave fewer young people in society to be punished, which would allow more effective targeting.
      Last year, the Home Office said that crime among young people was decreasing, and that evidence was initially put to the Select Committee. It later received evidence confirming Labour's assertions that there is a major problem with offending among young people—particularly in respect of burglary and car crime, which constitute 53 per cent. of offences recorded in this country. Reducing the number of youngsters caught up in those activities is an endeavour worth pursuing. The new clause presents a cost-effective way of approaching the problem, and I strongly commend it to the House.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Maclean: There is no doubt that young people who offend can benefit from support of the sort that local authorities, probation and education services and others can offer. The earlier that such support is forthcoming, the better—and it may well be a valuable adjunct to a caution. For that reason, our guidance to the police on the use of

      237
      cautioning encourages them to liaise with these agencies as to how they might help young people who are given a caution.
      We also asked the police to monitor the effectiveness of existing caution-plus schemes of the sort that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) mentioned, under which offenders who are cautioned co-operate with local agencies. Those schemes sometimes involve an element of compensation to the victim or reparation to the community.
      We shall examine with interest the outcome cf that monitoring exercise. It may show that supported cautions are worth while, but I suspect that the voluntary nature of the existing schemes is an important factor in their apparent success. The caution is not conditional on the offender agreeing to participate. Arrangements that are pressed on young offenders as a condition of their receiving a caution, like those for which the new clause provides, may not attract the same level of commitment. They may be less effective as a result.
      One objective of our new guidance is to bring multiple cautioning under control. There will be circumstances in which a second caution may be appropriate. They are defined in the guidance as where the second offence is trivial, or where the lapse of time since the first caution was given suggests that the first one had some effect. As a rule, offenders should not expect to be given more than one chance to avoid prosecution. The new clause would undermine that principle by providing that the supported caution should be given only after an offender has previously received a simple caution.
      I am opposed to the development of tiered cautioning, whereby offenders receive a series of extra-judicial penalties before being taken to court. For that and the other reasons that I outlined, I am not minded to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister gave an extremely disappointing reply to a constructive proposal that merited more detailed response. He simply produced a mechanistic response quite unsuitable for dealing with the problem of young people who do not respond to a first caution. The Minister's idea that the presumption should always be that if one caution has failed, a second will fail and that a different response must come from the criminal justice system is deeply flawed. It corresponds with no evidence from any part of the criminal justice system that such a presumption would lead to a diminution in offending or enable the police to respond as they see fit to particular threats to the public in certain parts of the country.
      That is yet another example of the Government seeking to impose from the centre operational guidelines on the police and criminal justice system that are wholly inappropriate. I do not imagine for a moment that the Government considered the consequences for those services, which are bound to try to pick up the pieces, or what pressures would be placed on the custodial system, social work departments, prison officers and others afflicted by the ill-judged, knee-jerk reaction of the Home Office and Home Secretary. But it is too late in the passage of the Bill to expect serious thought to be given to any serious propositions. It is a matter of great regret that this proposal, which has been worked out with some care, should have had such a cursory and scant response.
      Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House I wish to speak again. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his comments. I wish that the Government were equally constructive. The Minister does not need to wait for evidence. If he looks at the evidence that is available to, and produced by, his own Department, he will have information coming out of his ears which shows the value of such approaches. He does not need to be afraid of putting some pressure on young people and their parents, especially if that pressure is positive and effective. I am rather surprised that he is so lax that he feels that these matters should be tackled only if people feel like tackling them. The new clause would place some pressure on youngsters to get out of offending and avoid getting deeper into the criminal justice system.
      For God's sake, let this House act to nip things in the bud and stop young people doing damage to themselves, their victims and communities. In view of the totally unsatisfactory response of the Minister, I wish to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 283.

      Division No. 199]

      [5.20 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Allen, Graham

      Cousins, Jim

      Alton, David

      Cox, Tom

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dafis, Cynog

      Ashton, Joe

      Dalyell, Tam

      Austin-Walker, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Barnes, Harry

      Davidson, Ian

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Battle, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Denham, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Dewar, Donald

      Bell, Stuart

      Dixon, Don

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dobson, Frank

      Benton, Joe

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Betts, Clive

      Enright, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Blunkett, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bradley, Keith

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

      Fisher, Mark

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Flynn, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Byers, Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      George, Bruce

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clapham, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grocott, Bruce

      Coffey, Ann

      Gunnell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hall, Mike

      239

      Hanson, David

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Heppell, John

      Olner, William

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hoey, Kate

      Parry, Robert

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Patchett, Terry

      Home Robertson, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Radice, Giles

      Hutton, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Illsley, Eric

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ingram, Adam

      Reid, Dr John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Rendel, David

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jamieson, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jowell, Tessa

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Salmond, Alex

      Keen, Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Short, Clare

      Lewis, Terry

      Simpson, Alan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

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

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Soley, Clive

      McAllion, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Spellar, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McFall, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McKelvey, William

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      McLeish, Henry

      Stott, Roger

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Straw, Jack

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Madden, Max

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mahon, Alice

      Turner, Dennis

      Mandelson, Peter

      Tyler, Paul

      Marek, Dr John

      Vaz, Keith

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Walley, Joan

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Martlew, Eric

      Wareing, Robert N

      Maxton, John

      Watson, Mike

      Meale, Alan

      Welsh, Andrew

      Michael, Alun

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Milburn, Alan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Miller, Andrew

      Wilson, Brian

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Winnick, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wise, Audrey

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Worthington, Tony

      Morley, Elliot

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mudie, George

      Mr. Roger Godsiff and

      Mullin, Chris

      Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      Murphy, Paul

      240

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evennett, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Faber, David

      Amess, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Ashby, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Atkins, Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forth, Eric

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Baldry, Tony

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      French, Douglas

      Bates, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Batiste, Spencer

      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.

      Gillen, 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)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Burns, Simon

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clappison, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Congdon, David

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knapman, Roger

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      241

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sackville, Tom

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Legg, Barry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lightbown, David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Luff, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sproat, Iain

      Maclean, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, Sir David

      Stephen, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stewart, Allan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Streeter, Gary

      Malone, Gerald

      Sumberg, David

      Mans, Keith

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marland, Paul

      Sykes, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Thomason, Roy

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

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

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tracey, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Needham, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Walden, George

      Norris, Steve

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Waller, Gary

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Whitney, Ray

      Pawsey, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pickles, Eric

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Willetts, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Richards, Rod

      Wood, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Yeo, Tim

      Robathan, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Mr. Andrew MacKay and

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    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.'.—[Sir Ivan Lawrence.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
      The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 283.

      Division No. 200]

      [5.32 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

      Ashby, David

      Dixon, Don

      Ashton, Joe

      Dobson, Frank

      Austin-Walker, John

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      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)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bell, Stuart

      Faulds, Andrew

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Benton, Joe

      Fisher, Mark

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Flynn, Paul

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Foulkes, George

      Blair, Tony

      Fraser, John

      Blunkett, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Galloway, George

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Gapes, Mike

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

      Garrett, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      George, Bruce

      Burden, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Byers, Stephen

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Caborn, Richard

      Godsiff, Roger

      Callaghan, Jim

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cann, Jamie

      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)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clelland, David

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hoey, Kate

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Corbett, Robin

      Home Robertson, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cox, Tom

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      243

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Parry, Robert

      Hutton, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Illsley, Eric

      Pendry, Tom

      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)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jowell, Tessa

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Reid, Dr John

      Keen, Alan

      Rendel, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Rogers, Allan

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Salmond, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAllion, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Macdonald, Calum

      Short, Clare

      McFall, John

      Simpson, Alan

      McKelvey, William

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McLeish, Henry

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Soley, Clive

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spearing, Nigel

      McWilliam, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Madden, Max

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mahon, Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stevenson, George

      Marek, Dr John

      Stott, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Straw, Jack

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sumberg, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Maxton, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Meacher, Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Meale, Alan

      Vaz, Keith

      Michael, Alun

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Walley, Joan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Milburn, Alan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Miller, Andrew

      Watson, Mike

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Morley, Elliot

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wilson, Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Winnick, David

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wise, Audrey

      Mudie, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Mullin, Chris

      Wray, Jimmy

      Murphy, Paul

      Wright, Dr Tony

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Olner, William

      Mr. John Spellar and

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Atkins, Robert

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      244

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      French, Douglas

      Bates, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gallie, Phil

      Beggs, Roy

      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)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowis, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hague, William

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      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

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hendry, Charles

      Clappison, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Congdon, David

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knapman, Roger

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evennett, David

      Legg, Barry

      Faber, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lidington, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lightbown, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Lord, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Luff, Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Maclean, David

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      245

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Madel, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Malone, Gerald

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mans, Keith

      Spring, Richard

      Marland, Paul

      Sproat, Iain

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stephen, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Allan

      Merchant, Piers

      Streeter, Gary

      Mills, Iain

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sykes, John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      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

      Nicholls, Patrick

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

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tredinnick, David

      Norris, Steve

      Trend, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Trimble, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trotter, Neville

      Ottaway, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Page, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Paice, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      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

      Whitney, Ray

      Riddick, Graham

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Willetts, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wilshire, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sackville, Tom

      Wood, Timothy

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Andrew MacKay.

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      SECURE TRAINING ORDERS
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 6, at end add—
      `(7A) It shall be the duty of every local authority, acting either individually or in association with other local authorities,

      (a) to secure that they are in a position to comply with any secure training order which may be imposed under this section and

      (b) to provide, or to make arrangements with such persons as seem to them to be appropriate, for the provision by those persons of residential and non-residential facilities designed

      (i) to avoid the need for children and young persons to be placed in secure accommodation by providing for the supervision, support, education, treatment
      246
      and training of children and young persons who have been cautioned for or convicted of offences and

      (ii) to ensure the successful rehabilitation into the community of children and young persons who have spent a period in secure accommodation.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 262, in clause 7, page 6, line 25, leave out 'may enter into a contract with another person' and insert
      'shall enter into a contract with a social services department of a local authority'.
      Government amendments Nos. 55 and 364. No. 268, in clause 8, page 7, leave out lines 5 and 6. Government amendments Nos. 365, 188, 366 and 367. No. 261, in clause 11, page 8, leave out from line 32 to line 5 on page 9. No. 267, in clause 13, page 9, line 21, leave out from `centre;' to end of line 23.
      No. 266, in clause 13, page 9, line 30, leave out from 'centre;' to end of line 32.
      No. 265, in clause 14, page 10, leave out lines 1 and 2. Government amendment No. 368. No. 260, in clause 15, page 10, leave out lines 25 and 26. Government amendments Nos. 369, 370 and 297.
      Mr. Michael: Our amendments provide that, instead of the Government's secure training order, under which young people would be sent to one of five privately managed secure training centres dotted around the country, many far from their homes, various other arrangements would be made.
      First, the courts would be able to make a supervision order with the requirement that for a specified part of the order the young offender would be held in local authority secure accommodation. Secondly, local authorities would be under a statutory duty to provide secure accommodation to fulfil the requirements of that provision—that is an important part of the amendment.
      5.45 pm
      Thirdly, local authorities would be under a further statutory duty to provide residential and non-residential facilities designed to deal effectively with young offenders in the community at an earlier stage, to prevent them from reaching the point at which they need to be held in secure accommodation.
      It will be clear from the amendment that the Opposition seek to ensure not only secure accommodation and the ability to deal with young offenders in a firm and proper way when they fail to respond, but the continuity of care and control that is essential if we want to do something about juvenile and youth crime.
      The Government's secure training order was drawn up to fulfil a conference speech commitment rather than because it would really tackle the problem of youth crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers warned of the dangers of sending youngsters many miles from their homes and breaking the links between offenders and the homes and communities to which they will eventually return—not even under the Government's recommendations will we simply lock youngsters up and throw away the key.
      The Government propose that there will be five centres with 40 places. The people eligible for secure training orders will be young offenders who have committed three or more imprisonable offences and have reoffended during,

      247
      or been in breach of, a supervision order. In relation to secure training orders, magistrates and youth courts will have the same sentencing power as judges in Crown courts. For a single offence, they will be able to give a 12 to 14-year-old a secure training order of up to two years, which is four times the length of custodial sentence that magistrates can impose on offenders over 15, for whom they are limited to a maximum sentence of six months for a single offence.
      Under the Bill, the new institutions could be managed by public, voluntary or private sector organisations, but clearly it is envisaged that in practice they will be built and operated by the private sector—the explanation of expenses to be incurred under the Bill depends on that interpretation. That is a retrograde and damaging step which will increase rather than reduce offending by juveniles, and will fragment the present system for dealing with young offenders.
      Experience shows that all forms of institutional care or custody for young offenders have high reconviction rates. That is well known to be true of Prison Service custody. According to a parliamentary answer to Baroness Faithfull from Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, Home Office, on 22 March, the latest available figures for 15 to 16-year-olds are for those who were discharged from Prison Service establishments in 1987 and then followed up for two years. The figures show that 83 per cent. of boys—2,270 out of 2,749—and 43 per cent. of girls—15 out of 35—were reconvicted within two years of discharge. That covers 2,285 or 82 per cent. of the 2,784 15 to 16-year-olds.
      High reconviction rates are not restricted to Prison Service establishments. They are also common to other forms of institution. That is why it is extremely important that any secure places are not merely produced ad lib, and that we do not repeat the mistake of the short sharp shock. Secure places must be provided where they are needed, and must be integrated into a system of care and control at local level.
      The Government have still not done much to redeem their reputation on secure places. It is only this year that the Government have come some way towards meeting the promise, given during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, to provide secure places for the older age group to end the scandal of young people of 15 and 16 being held in adult prison accommodation. That promise was given as a result of a campaign, including pressure from Labour Members, yet, three years later, not one additional secure place has been provided to meet the commitment given by the then Home Secretary and the then Minister of State, the present Secretary of State for Education.
      I do not want to delay the House today by going in depth into issues with which we have dealt in Committee. We have made it clear that there is a need for secure places. There are youngsters, even in the 11 to 15 age group, who need to be held securely and examples cited in the press illustrate the need for those places. That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is where and how the places should be provided. Should they simply be exercises in isolation, as the Government have proposed—flying in the face of the advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers, to which I referred a few moments ago—or should they be provided as part of an integrated programme of provision at local level?
      We have emphasised successful rehabilitation into the community of children and young persons who have spent
      248
      a period in secure accommodation. That is not easy. We have quoted the reconviction rates, which show the likelihood of youngsters reoffending on returning to the community. From my experience of working with youngsters, including young offenders, in local communities, I know that there is often bravado, and encouragement and glorification of a young person who has been away for a time. The prevention of reoffending requires a great deal of hard, integrated work, involving the authorities of the establishment in which the young offender is held and those who will work with him and his family in the community and in the home environment. Creating fresh victims and simply encouraging youngsters to go further up the tariff is a fruitless pursuit and a waste of massive sums.
      I plead with the Minister and with the Government to provide the secure places that are needed—there is no difference between us on that—in a way that will enable them to be effective and will enable close work with the young person, his family, his school and his community to ensure that when he returns he is less likely, rather than more likely, to offend. Despite the efforts of probation officers, youth workers and others in the local community, one of the failings of our present system is that re-entry into the local community seems destined to be a self-fulfilling prophecy—that those who have been away in custody will return to reoffend. I do not believe that that is inevitable, but I believe that we do not do the things in our system that are requisite for preventing that from happening.
      The way in which the Government intend to set up the secure training units means that those units are likely to be re-visited in a short number of years by further criminal justice legislation which will aim to change them into something more effective. The Government could avoid that by accepting our proposition, which provides a system that would work. It would provide the secure places, the training and the education as part of an integrated system at local level.
      Our amendment makes clear the requirements on local authorities. Local authorities should ensure that they can comply with any secure training order that may be imposed under the clause. They should prepare for the successful rehabilitation into the community of those who have spent a period in secure accommodation. That is a balanced approach and an option greatly to be preferred to the Government's proposal. It is, perhaps, the option that the Government might have proposed if they had not rushed so quickly from the Conservative party conference to decide on their drafting of this important clause. I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will be persuaded that we are offering a better option and a more effective way in which to approach young offenders.
      It is a sad fact that the Bill was introduced with a fanfare of trumpets as something that would demonstrate the Government's commitment to tackling crime, but from all the reports it is clear that it has failed to do that and that it has failed to rescue the Government's reputation. They remain a Government who make noise, but who do not act effectively to deal with the problem of crime and with the problem of offending by young people.
      Our amendment seeks to address those problems in a proper and constructive way, in a way that would work and in a way that would integrate the requirement for punishment with the requirement for reform to avoid the creation of future victims. I commend it to the House on those grounds.
      Mr. John Gunnell: Let me begin by quoting the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, who said:
      "The Home Secretary's plans to send children to jails has been exposed for the risky sham it is. Siting the new jails inside old prisons will mix staff, facilities and ethos. Young frightened children will be locked away, isolated from families, and all in the name of bleak political ambition."
      Conservative Members may say that it is an entirely predictable quotation, but I believe that it has elements of truth in it. It is important to analyse the choice before the House—that between the Government's proposals for secure training centres and the Opposition's proposals, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which represent a constructive approach to tackling the issue.
      To put the matter in context, we must realise that juvenile crime is of enomious importance and concern to us. Home Office statistics suggest that there has been a 37 per cent. decline in the number of known juvenile offenders since 1985. That is partly due to demographic changes: the juvenile population has fallen by 25 per cent. However, the number of known juvenile offenders per 100,000 of the population also fell, from 3,130 in 1980 to 2,616 in 1990—a drop of 16 per cent. Juveniles commit a high proportion of detected offences, although that proportion also appeared to be declining. In 1980, juvenile crime represented 32 per cent. of all crime. In 1991, that figure had dropped to 20 per cent.
      I give those figures as background and not to suggest that we should not take juvenile crime extremely seriously or that I disagree in any way with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarlh that there are children as young as 12 to 14 who need to be in secure accommodation. The contention that more secure accommodation is needed is not in dispute.
      My experience in Leeds, where the National Bed Bureau is located, shows that more secure accommodation is needed. However, we believe that integrated provision at local authority level is a constructive way forward and that the Government's proposals owe a lot to the fact that a party conference pledge was made and put into action far too soon, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. The Government's proposals are wrong-headed.
      It is sad that the House faces legislation that it may well accept as drafted, but which can only do harm and can only lead to an increase in juvenile crime. It can only be a mechanism that will be repealed, whoever is in power, because it will be found to be entirely ineffective and to increase the rate of crime.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, when we were debating that matter in Committee, one of the criticisms of the Labour proposals was that hardened, persistent young offenders would be put into accommodation with other children who were not in that category. Has he, or his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), found some way round that problem so that those persistent, hardened criminals will not enter situations where there are other innocent children whom they would corrupt?
      6 pm
      Mr. Gunnell: I do not find that question at all difficult to address because I am very familiar with the secure unit at Leeds, which houses 27 young people of ages. For the most part, they are older than those in the 12 to 14 bracket, although there are some children there who are younger than 12 years and who have committed especially serious offences. The Minister has been to the same unit and knows that the locking-up arrangements and the placing of children in that unit is such that no child is placed in a position where he could influence other children. Children are divided into groups. Age is one of the factors considered, but there is no reason why the nature of the crime that they have committed should not also be a factor. Therefore, that matter can be taken care of by design.
      We should consider the possible criteria for judging and comparing the Government's proposal and the Opposition's alternative. The criteria, which in a sense I have learnt as a result of being appointed by Conservative Members to the Audit Commission for seven years, are the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness. They are good criteria by which to consider what is on offer and to compare the two systems.
      Let us begin with effectiveness—how would we judge the effectiveness of the proposed accommodation? In considering accommodation for 12 to 14-year-olds, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with children. They are especially difficult children who, in some cases, have committed dreadful offences or a long series of offences—nevertheless, we are still talking about children. Although the detention and the placing of that person in secure accommodation which removes his freedom is, in itself, punishment, we must recognise that we are dealing with children aged between 12 and 14, so a great portion of their lives is still in front of them. If what we do to them is effective, they are less likely to reoffend when they leave that accommodation than when they enter it. Thus, the major criteria by which we judge the effectiveness of what is on offer are the results.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth says, the results from prison-type accommodation show that it is ineffective. The West Yorkshire probation service told me that, in the past year in West Yorkshire, 85 per cent. of supervision orders were successfully completed without further conviction. However, studies in Nottingham and Newcastle suggested that 70 to 80 per cent. of juveniles who received custodial sentences were re-convicted within two years of being released from custody, compared with 45 to 55 per cent. in the same period after supervision.
      Let us consider what has happened in Surrey, a county which is not under the political control of the Labour party. I am commenting on an authority which has been under Conservative control for a long time. The people in Surrey tell me that between 1982 and 1992, the court throughput and the number of supervision orders were halved and the number of custodial sentences, because of the way in which the people in the courts there dealt with what was occurring, were reduced from 16 per cent. of those who went through the courts to 4 per cent. In the case of young people below the age of 17, the number was reduced to 0.3 per cent.
      That reduction is in part because of the success of the Surrey youth justice centre, which provided tight supervision for young people. Among other things, they

      251
      were made to work and were brought face to face with the victims of their crimes, thereby seeing at first hand the damage that they had caused. A study of young people who were referred to that centre showed that, over the first three years of its operation between 1983 and 1986, 40 to 50 per cent. were not re-convicted. That is obviously a different picture from the 70 to 80 per cent. re-offending figure, which I mentioned earlier, for those given custodial sentences. That shows that custodial sentences, especially in national, Home Office institutions, which is where the studies were carried out, are ineffective. Work, both in local authority secure accommodation and certainly with supervision in the community, has proved to be far more effective in preventing re-offending.
      The maintenance of the child's personal and educational development is also important. One of the criticisms that we must level at the plan for five national centres is its inability to deal with the educational and personal development of trainees, and, especially the integration of those trainees back into the community. It is clear, as the Home Office has already said, that it will not be possible to provide a standard of education that offers children the national curriculum in the secure training centres. Those children will immediately become out of step with children who are not in training centres, which is bound to cause them a certain amount of difficulty when they return to school. That is already one big disadvantage of the centres.
      The other factor was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. If there are five centres, all on the eastern side of the country as those that have been mentioned are, great tracts of the country, such as the whole of Wales and the entire south-west region, will be without a centre. Children from those areas will have to travel well over 100 miles and, in some cases, more than 200 miles to be admitted to a centre. Under those circumstances, how will there be any chance of an active reintegration of those children into the community?
      Specifications have gone out to the private sector about the regime that will exist in the centres and what after-care—described as supervision—will be provided. The specifications say—I thank the Minister for releasing them to us:
      "On release from the Centre the trainee will undertake a period of statutory supervision."
      It is clearly wise to conduct some supervision to try to provide after-care. The specifications continue:
      "The duration and format of the supervision and which agency will provide it is unresolved. Contractors are invited to say whether they would wish to provide this service themselves as a continuation of the regime."
      The contractors are also asked to suggest whether they will make individual arrangements, perhaps on a sub-contractual basis, with other potential providers. Under those circumstances, it is envisaged that they would go to the probation service, to the social services or to voluntary organisations. Notably, voluntary organisations to date have been unprepared to play any part in that process. Voluntary agencies as a whole see the secure training centres as a political move that does not have any merit in terms of dealing with crime or young people, and they have stayed out of the bidding process.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have for years tried the methods that he suggested to the
      252
      House? Recently, young children were taken to the continent and to Africa and on sailing holidays in Scotland. They have come back and kicked doors down, burgled homes, driven cars away, stolen car radios and so on. That has not worked. The children who will be placed in the secure units proposed by the Government are evil. In such units, they will be educated, taught right from wrong and given some discipline. We have tried everything else with them. We have tried the methods proposed by the hon. Gentleman for too long. As the party of law and order, we are taking action yet again.
      Mr. Gunnell: I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is not right in what he says. He quoted a few isolated examples—I am sure that the Minister could comment on them. The position is that the local authority secure accommodation that we are talking about can be extremely secure. I assure the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that not one person has got away from the secure unit in Leeds over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to come with me and have a look around the unit. He will find that it is totally secure. The people who run the unit certainly do not organise jaunts of any sort. The hon. Gentleman cannot extrapolate from the experiences of some local authorities the theory that that is the norm. We are talking about the need to have some secure accommodation—that means, accommodation from which people do not get out.
      Two points must be made about that: first, it is what happens to people when they are in such units that matters and, secondly, whatever we plan, at some stage those people will get out because they will be let out. What matters then is what they have experienced inside and the arrangements that are made for them when they come out. It is important for them to be reintegrated into the community. Therefore, the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—that all local authorities should have a statutory duty so that everyone is dealt with and accommodated near their community—would mean that they can maintain contact with their families to the extent that that is desirable. It would also mean that when they come out of the accommodation, there will be someone who has known them and worked with them inside the accommodation who will be able to assist them with reintegration in the community.
      People who come out of such units must be reintegrated into schools. The difficulty is that when people come out of an institution and go to school, they go in with a reputation and the teachers soon know about it. It is hard under any circumstances for those people to be reintegrated into a school on an equal basis and to be treated the same as others. It is certainly much easier to reintegrate people if someone can work with them inside the accommodation and then work with them in the community.
      Contractors will be running the institutions; indeed, a major weakness is that it is prescribed that they will get them. Therefore, there will be no continuity of experience in the way that even the studies suggest is desirable. Amendment No. 3 would introduce efficiency. Without it, we cannot have efficient arrangements of the sort described as necessary by the studies.
      In terms of economy, we must examine the large capital sums that will be expended in setting up the capital schemes and the five centres, and what will happen when someone tries to fulfil a contract. If a company is to make a profit from running a secure training centre, it can do so

      253
      only by being careful about staff costs. There is a direct conflict between the level of care provided, which depends on staff levels, the profit that may be required by the private sector for running the unit and the size of the fee that is charged. That commonly means that one goes for the local authority model.
      I urge the House to abandon the Government's scheme. It cannot work; it will only worsen the situation. Above all the other things in the Bill, it will be seen as a political expedient to fulfil some of the 27 points that the Home Secretary outlined at the Conservative party conference. After there has been some experience of the scheme, it will be shown to be a failure. The alternatives have a much greater chance of success. I urge a rethink of the issue not simply on a party-political basis but because we must have the most effective way to deal with juvenile offenders. The Government's scheme is a mechanism that will ensure that 12 to 14-year-olds are given the basis for a continued life of crime.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Maclean: The Government's amendments in this grouping are largely technical and I shall deal with them formally in due course. I shall simply address Labour's amendments.
      Amendment No. 3 would place a duty on local authorities to ensure that they comply with secure training orders made by the courts. There is no power in the Bill for courts to require local authorities to comply with secure training orders. Even amendment No. 262, which would require the Home Secretary to contract with local authorities for the provision of secure training centres, would not be the same as placing a duty on local authorities to comply with secure training orders.
      On the substance of the amendment, the Government do not believe that local authorities should have the overall responsibility for juveniles detained under secure training orders for two reasons. The first is that local authority secure accommodation accommodates a wide variety of children and young people, not all of whom have problems connected with offending, as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) pointed out in his intervention. Given the wide range of young people, it would not be reasonable to expect the regime to be focused on tackling offending behaviour in the manner that we envisage for the secure training centres.
      Secondly, local authority secure accommodation is mostly in small units of up to eight or 16 places. We envisage that, in contrast, the secure training centres will be larger regional centres taking about 40 youngsters in each. Such a size will allow the development of a good range of education and other activities.
      The amendment would also place a duty on local authorities to provide a range of other facilities both to prevent children from needing to be placed in secure accommodation and to rehabilitate those who are. Local authorities are already under a duty, as a result of the Children Act 1989, to take reasonable steps to prevent children from committing crime and from needing to be placed in secure accommodation.
      Amendment No. 262 would restrict the Secretary of State to making contracts for the provision and running of secure training centres, or parts of those centres, with the social services departments of local authorities. The remaining amendments in the group would remove the
      254
      provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to provide directly managed centres but to contract out certain functions in them.
      The Government are committed to a process of competitive tendering for the centres, which will help to achieve value for money by driving down costs and
      encouraging the development of imaginative and innovative ideas both in design and operation.
      Mr. Gunnell rose—
      Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall conclude my remarks. At the root of the debate is a difference in philosophy about who should run the centres. We see a valuable role for local authorities in their areas. We see a valuable role for private enterprise in the centres. For those reasons, I ask the House not to support Labour's amendments.
      Mr. Michael: Regrettably, it is clear that the Minister is determined to go down the path that will do little to solve the problem of offending by young people and to save future victims from being created. It is essential that we make that distinction clear and, therefore, we shall press amendment No. 3 to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 247, Noes 292.

      Division No. 201]

      [6.19 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clelland, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coffey, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Alton, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Cox, Tom

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Barron, Kevin

      Dafis, Cynog

      Battle, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bayley, Hugh

      Darling, Alistair

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Davidson, Ian

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bell, Stuart

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Denham, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dewar, Donald

      Benton, Joe

      Dixon, Don

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dobson, Frank

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Betts, Clive

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Blair, Tony

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Blunkett, David

      Enright, Derek

      Boateng, Paul

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradley, Keith

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fisher, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gapes, Mike

      Cann, Jamie

      Garrett, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      George, Bruce

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clapham, Michael

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gordon, Mildred

      255

      Graham, Thomas

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mudie, George

      Gunnell, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hain, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Hall, Mike

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hanson, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Olner, William

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Heppell, John

      Parry, Robert

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoey, Kate

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Pope, Greg

      Home Robertson, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hoyle, Doug

      Radice, Giles

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Randall, Stuart

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hutton, John

      Rendel, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jamieson, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Janner, Greville

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Salmond, Alex

      Jowell, Tessa

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Sheerman, Barry

      Keen, Alan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Short, Clare

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Simpson, Alan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Livingstone, Ken

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Soley, Clive

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spearing, Nigel

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spellar, John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McAllion, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Stevenson, George

      McFall, John

      Stott, Roger

      McKelvey, William

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McLeish, Henry

      Straw, Jack

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Turner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Madden, Max

      Vaz, Keith

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Mahon, Alice

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marek, Dr John

      Watson, Mike

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Martlew, Eric

      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

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Worthington, Tony

      Milburn, Alan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morley, Elliot

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      256

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Amess, David

      Evennett, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Faber, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Atkins, Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Forth, Eric

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Baldry, Tony

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bates, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gale, Roger

      Beggs, Roy

      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)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Burns, Simon

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Churchill, Mr

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clappison, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hendry, Charles

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Congdon, David

      Horam, John

      Conway, Derek

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jack, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dunn, Bob

      Knapman, Roger

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Elletson, Harold

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

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knox, Sir David

      257

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Legg, Barry

      Sackville, Tom

      Leigh, Edward

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lidington, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lightbown, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Lord, Michael

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Luff, Peter

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Maclean, David

      Sproat, Iain

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, Sir David

      Stephen, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stewart, Allan

      Malone, Gerald

      Streeter, Gary

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Marland, Paul

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marlow, Tony

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moate, Sir Roger

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

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tracey, Richard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trend, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Trimble, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Needham, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Norris, Steve

      Waller, Gary

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Whitney, Ray

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whittingdale, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Wilkinson, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Willetts, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wilshire, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wood, Timothy

      Richards, Rod

      Yeo, Tim

      Riddick, Graham

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Amendment accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      SUPERVISION UNDER SECURE TRAINING ORDER
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 4, line 27, at end insert—
      '(5A) The probation committee or local authority shall be entitled to recover from the Secretary of State the expenses. reasonably incurred by them in discharging their duty under this section.'.
      No. 54, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
      '( ) The sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under subsection (5A) shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament.'.— [Mr. Howard.]

    Clause 7

      RAVES: POWER TO STOP PERSONS FROM PROCEEDING
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 6, line 26, after 'running' insert
      '(or the provision and running)'.
      No. 364, in page 6, line 26, after 'him' insert
      or (if the contract so provides) for the running by sub-contractors of his,'. — [Mr. Howard.]

    Clause 8

      OFFICERS OF CONTRACTED OUT SECURE TRAINING CENTRES
      Amendment made: No. 365, in page 7, line 20, leave out `shall' and insert
      and any sub-contractor of his shall each'. — [Mr. Howard.]

    Clause 9
      POWERS AND DUTIES OF CUSTODY OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT CONTRACTED OUT TRAINING CENTRES.
      Amendment made: No. 188, in page 7, line 33, leave out `hat' and insert `headgear'. —[Mr.Howard.]
    Clause 10

      INTERVENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN MANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTED OUT TRAINING CENTRES.
      Amendments made: No. 366, in page 8, line 16, leave out `shall' and insert
      `and any sub-contractor of his shall each'.
      No. 367, in page 8, line 30, after `contractor,' insert `any sub-contractor of his,'. —[Mr. Howard.]

    INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 7 TO 14
    Amendments made: No. 368, in page 10, line 22, leave out from `contracted' to 'it' in line 23 and insert
    `with the Secretary of State for the provision or running (or the provision and running) of.
    No. 369, in page 10, line 32, leave out 'and'.
    No. 370, in page 10, line 34, at end insert—
    and
    "sub-contractor", in relation to a contracted out secure training centre, means a person who has contracted with the contractor for the running of it or any part of it.'. —[Mr. Howard.]

    Clause 20
      SECURE REMANDS FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS
      Amendment made: No. 56, in page 13, line 17, leave out `young'. — [Mr. Howard.]
    Clause 22

      NO BAIL FOR DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE OR RAPE
      Amendment made: No. 296, in page 14, line 4, at end insert—
      `( ) a finding under section 4A(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (cases of unfitness to plead) that a person did the act or made the omission charged against him;'. —[Mr. Howard.]

    Clause 29

      EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS WHEN QUESTIONED OR CHARGED
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 19, line 9, after '(1)', insert—
      'The provisions of this section shall not apply to an accused—

      (a) in respect of the time prior to his being interviewed in the police station; and

      (b) unless he has been informed of his right to legal advice from a qualified solicitor, together with an opportunity to consult that solicitor in private.

      (1A)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 250, in page 19, line 9, after 'proceedings', insert 'triable only on indictment'.
      No. 251, in page 19, line 9 after 'person', insert '(other than a child)'.
      No. 248, in page 19, line 9, after 'offence', insert
      'or in any proceedings to commit an accused for trial'.
      No. 253, in page 19, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—
      `(a) at any time when being interviewed at a police station or other premises in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and on being questioned by a constable in relation to an offence, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or'.
      No. 316, in page 19, line 19, after 'be' insert
      'and provided that such questioning or charging shall have been tape-recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.'.
      No. 247, in page 19, line 20, after 'applies', insert
      'unless the court is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for that subsection to apply'.
      No. 319, in page 19, leave out lines 21 to 34.
      No. 31, in page 19, leave out lines 33 to 35.
      No. 313, in page 19, line 34, leave out `(c)'.
      No. 249, in page 19, line 34, leave out 'court or'.
      No. 320, in page 19, line 36, at end insert
      'provided that the evidence given in accordance with subsection (1) above is not by itself to be considered sufficient evidence that there is a case to answer.'.
      No. 252, in page 19, line 44, at end insert—
      (5) Subsection (2) above shall not apply unless the accused was told in ordinary language prior to being questioned by a constable about the offence—

      (a) what the effect of this section would be if he fails to mention any such fact as described in subsection (1) above; and

      (b) his entitlement to consult a solicitor in private before being interviewed about the offence at the police station; and

      (c) the facts available to any constable at the time supporting the accused's involvement in the offence.'.

      No. 246, in page 20, line 11, after 'occurred', insert
      260
      '(a) by reason of the accused person suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap or was due to his capacity to understand the significance of or respond to questions being impaired for any other reason; or
      (b)'.
      No. 314, in page 20, line 11, at end insert—
      `(7) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply unless the accused was told in ordinary language by the constable (when being questioned in the circumstances of subsection (1)(a) above) or by the charging officer (in the circumstances of subsection (1)(b) above) what the effect would be of his failure to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings.'.
      No. 5, in clause 30, page 20, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 21.
      No. 309, in page 20, line 12, after '(1)' insert—
      'At the trial of any person for an offence, the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of that offence, may draw such inferences from the failure of the accused to give evidence as appear proper.
      (2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where

      (a) the accused is a child; or

      (b) the accused's guilt is not in issue; or

      (c) it appears to the court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence; or

      (d) the court, in the exercise of its general discretion considers the application of subsection (1) to be inappropriate.

      3) Where the accused is unrepresented by counsel or solicitor the clerk of the court shall inform him in ordinary language what the effect of his failure to give evidence will be provided that

      (a) subsection (2) above does not apply, and

      (b) where the trial is by jury, the information shall be given in the absence of the jury.'.

      No. 307, in page 20, leave out from (1) in line 12 to end of line 46.
      Government amendment No. 333.
      No. 231, in page 20, line 17, after 'evidence', insert 'or
      (c) it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for the above-mentioned subsections to apply.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 335 and 336.
      No. 226, in page 20, line 21, after `defence,', insert
      'and in the absence of the jury,'
      No. 228, in page 20, line 22, leave out 'will' and insert 'may'.
      No. 227, in page 20, line 23, at end insert—
      '(aa) shall tell him the grounds on which the court is satisfied that he has failed to supply an explanation upon an important issue in the case; and'.
      No. 230, in page 20, line 29, after 'thereupon', insert
      `after hearing representations from or on behalf of the accused'.
      No. 229, in page 20, line 29, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      Government amendments Nos. 337 to 339.
      No. 308, in page 21, leave out lines 1 to 6.
      No. 310, in page 21, line 6, leave out '(7)' and insert '(4)'.
      No. 311, in page 21, line 9, leave out '(8)' and insert '(5)'.
      No. 232, in page 21, line 9, leave out from 'applies' to the end of line 15 and insert
      only to proceedings where the accused person was first questioned about or charged with the offence after the commencement of sections 29, 31 and 32'.
      Government amendment No. 340.
      No. 312, in page 21, line 16, leave out '(9)' and insert '(6)'.
      No. 254, in clause 31, page 21, line 20, after 'person', insert '(other than a child)'.
      No. 245, in page 21, line 34, after 'person', insert
      'while he is being interviewed at a police station or other premises under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.'.
      No. 244, in page 21, line 37, after 'applies', insert
      `unless the court is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for that subsection to apply.'.
      No. 233, in page 22, line 3, after 'above', insert '-(a)'
      No. 234, in page 22, line 4 after 'request', insert '; and
      (b) his entitlement to consult a solicitor in private before being interviewed about the offence at the police station; and
      (c) the facts available to any constable at the time supporting the accused's involvement in the offence.'.
      No. 235, in page 22, line 10 after 'occurred', insert—
      `(a) by reason of the accused person suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap or was due to his capacity to understand the significance of or respond to questions being impaired for any other reason; or
      (b).'.
      No. 236, in clause 32, page 22, line 12, after 'person', insert '(other than a child)'.
      No. 237, in page 22, line 19 after 'person', insert
      while he is being interviewed at a police station or other premises under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1968.'.
      No. 238, in page 22, line 24 after 'applies', insert
      unless the court is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for that subsection to apply.'.
      No. 240, in page 22, line 32, after 'above', insert
      '-(a)'
      No. 239, in page 22, line 33, after 'request', insert 'and
      (b) his entitlement to consult a solicitor in private before being interviewed about the offence at the police station; and
      (c) the facts available to any constable at the time supporting the accused's involvement in the offence.'.
      No. 242, in page 22, line 38, after 'occurred', insert—
      `(a) by reason of the accused person suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap or was due to his capacity to understand the significance of or respond to questions being impaired for any other reason; or
      (b).'.
      Government amendments Nos. 355, 357, 360, 356, 358 and 359.
      Mr. Blair: This is an important debate concerning the issue of the right to silence, as it called, which is pan: of the more general principle that a person has the right under British law not to incriminate himself. The prosecution must prove guilt, and there is a presumption of innocence -these are fundamental principles of our law.
      It is not, of course, that the jury cannot know of, read about or see the accused's failure to speak or to disclose facts. They can, and juries will do so. The fact that someone has refused to speak is not inadmissible evidence, and juries know that it happens and no doubt bear it in mind.
      However, the critical point is that, at present, the judge and the prosecutor cannot comment adversely upon that refusal to speak and invite the jury to draw adverse inferences of guilt. Under the terms of the Bill, they will be able so to comment.
      Therefore, even if, technically, the right to silence remains, there will be in effect strong practical pressure on those who are accused to talk. That is a change in those fundamental principles of law. I do not say that fundamental principles of law can never change, but they should yield only if there is a clear benefit, and no detriment which outweighs the value of the principle.
      Our conclusion, along with that of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, is that this has not been demonstrated, and that the case for changing the fundamental principles in this way has not been made. We go further, and say that it is more than merely a matter of
      262
      high constitutional principle. There is a serious and substantial risk that, in the manner in which the Government have proceeded, we will not merely fail to convict more of the guilty, but that we are in danger of convicting more of the innocent. Those who are in primary danger from the changes will not be, as has been said, the professional and the hardened criminal, but they could well be the weak, the inadequate and the frightened.
      It is self-evident to any sensible person that the circumstances in which people may be questioned and asked to disclose facts relevant to their defence, and indeed the justification for requiring them to do so, can vary enormously. There is the time when someone is first questioned by a police officer on the street, through to the police station, to the pre-trial review and finally to the trial at court.
      I believe that the single most extraordinary feature of the Government's proposals—what makes them chilling in their degree of political, rather than judicious, motivation—is that they do not seek simply to abolish the right to silence in a limited or controlled way or under certain conditions. Rather, they abolish it completely, in all circumstances and without any apparent additional safeguards whatever. I would further say that they have been thoroughly disingenuous in their attempt to present their proposals as the development of thinking that has gone before.
      Briefly—I know that other hon. Members wish to speak—I wish to recap a little of the history of the matter. The Home Secretary has relied heavily on the Criminal Law Revision Committee report of 1972 to justify his position. It is true that the committee did say more than 20 years ago that the right to silence should be restricted. However, even it referred to the matter primarily in terms of what is called the ambush defence; in other words, where the accused suddenly at his trial relies on different facts, catches the prosecution by surprise and gains some unfair advantage. I could well understand the frustration of police officers in those circumstances.
      In 1981, a royal commission disagreed even with that restriction on the right to silence, and said that it should remain unrestricted. In July 1987, a previous Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—began to inquire
      again into the nature of the right to silence. Again, I would submit that the limits and the evil at which he wished to strike were clear and limited.
      The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "the question in my mind is not whether a suspected or accused person should have a right to remain silent through investigation and trial—he has that right and should continue to have it—but whether, when an accused person ambushes the prosecution by producing at his trial a line of defence which he has not previously mentioned to the police, the court should be precluded from drawing reasonable inferences." —[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 687.]
      He later set up a working party, which concluded that the problem was the last-minute ambush defence of the prosecution.
      The royal commission, which was set up some time ago and reported in July last year, considered the right to silence and commissioned research on the subject. First, it came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that that right was relied on in many cases, or that it caused great problems with the administration of criminal justice.
      Secondly, it decided by a majority to retain the right to silence, but dealt with the problem of the ambush defence

      263
      by saying that there should be a greater and more mutual disclosure of the prosecution and defence cases. We would certainly agree. It is a sensible recommendation, and it goes a long way towards dealing with the ambush defence problem.
      It is true that the minority of royal commission members disagreed with the majority's conclusions. It is important, however, to understand the terms in which the minority decided that the right to silence should be abrogated. I disagree with the conclusion—it is a matter of principle—but it is important to understand their limits set on the amount to which that right should be abrogated.
      The report states:
      "Those who support a modification of the right to silence"—
      that is the minority—
      "argue that such a step would not lead to a weakening of the protection provided for the innocent and vulnerable. The safeguards of PACE and its codes are already significant and might be extended, for example to allow suspects who are emotionally upset the opportunity to postpone an interview. Suspects may already ask for a second interview if they wish to retract or modify anything said earlier. Access to free legal advice is, in itself, a valuable safeguard … Much more use could be made of audio or video recordings"—
      and so forth.
      The commission did not recommend that the right to silence be changed, and even the minority desired to do so only with additional safeguards in place. The Home Secretary and the Government tried to say that they were following the minority recommendation of the royal commission. It is important to point out, however, that that minority never contemplated abolition to anything like the extent that the right to silence would be abolished by the Bill.
      For example, the minority did not conceive of the right being abolished prior to a suspect reaching a police station, which is a critical point, but envisaged that the right would be abrogated when the suspect was in the police station only if additional safeguards were in place.
      Clause 29 of the Bill means that the right to silence is lost, even on questioning in the street. Whenever that issue has been raised, Ministers have said that there will be safeguards, because the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will apply.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard)indicated assent.
      Mr. Blair: I see that the Home Secretary nods his head. However, it will not apply before a suspect is interviewed formally at a police station.
      The notion that safeguards within PACE will control all the circumstances of the abolition of the right to silence is false. It will not do so. PACE will apply only once the suspect is being interviewed at the police station. Even then, the Bill does not require that people should know roughly the nature of the charges against them, that they should have access to properly qualified legal advice, or even that adherence to the conditions of PACE is a precondition of admissibility. There will be nothing like the safeguards suggested by the minority in the royal commission report.
      6.45 pm
      The danger of proceeding in such a way has been described again and again by many eminent Queen's counsel who are practising lawyers in the field and who
      264
      prosecute as well as defend. Richard Ferguson, the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, who is a Queen's counsel and was a Member of the Stormont Parliament in the 1970s, said:
      "The Criminal Bar Association strongly opposes any diminution of the right to silence. It will not help to convict the terrorist or the sophisticated criminal. They will hide behind their solicitors advice or the lack of it to argue reasonable grounds for not answering questions. It will increase the possibility of a wrongful conviction of the weak, the inarticulate and the confused."
      Surely, even if we differ on the question of principle—whether the right to silence should be curtailed, and I do not believe that it should—it is wrong to abrogate the right without establishing any safeguards against abuse, given past experience and the judgment of the royal commission. It is not in the interests of the accused, but it is also not in the interests of the people who will conduct the questioning.
      If the right to silence is abolished before the accused reaches the police station, one risks a descent into the old nightmares familiar to people who practised law in the 1970s—the allegations of police brutality, verbals and false confessions. There would be trials within trials, which would prolong criminal cases and cause the problems that used to be caused before PACE.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. He has only mentioned the effect on the confused and the weak of removing the right to silence. What about stronger people, or people who might be expected to be stronger? What effect will it have on them?
      Mr. Blair: Mr. Ferguson dealt with that very question. He came to the conclusion—it was also the view taken by the Criminal Bar Association—that the professional criminal will not be at risk. It seems to me that it is common sense that many professional criminals will try to rely on the right to silence. We must ask whether abolishing it will lead them to speak differently. The problem is that it is not the professional criminal who will be the most at risk but, as Mr. Ferguson says, the weak and the inadequate. It is irresponsible and dangerous to legislate without instituting safeguards.
      The issue of principle is important here; I shall deal with it briefly, because it was well canvassed in Committee.
      It is not as if there is any strong evidence that abolition will transform the criminal justice system—that is not even the Government's case. Indeed, I was astounded when I came across the Minister's words in Committee. He said:
      "We are not looking"—
      in making these changes—
      "for recognisable changes in rates of conviction."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 February 1994; c. 401.]
      I should have thought that that would be the one justification for the clause. Abrogation of an otherwise fundamental principle of British law can be justified in circumstances in which one could say that there is a fundamental problem that can be dealt with only in that way.
      The views of Mr. Roy Amlot, a very distinguished Queen's counsel and prosecutor, are also pertinent. Many practising lawyers at the Bar were surprised at the strength of his opposition to the Government's case. Recently, he wrote in a letter to The Times:

      265
      "Despite many years, in the past, of prosecuting as Treasury counsel, I believe that such a move to emasculate the tight to silence is clumsy and unenlightened."
      He goes on to suggest why abolition will not have the effect that the Government desire and why it is wrong in principle. In effect, he said—he has repeated that view since—that moves towards the abolition of the right to silence are moves towards the abolition of the presumption of innocence. That is a strong claim, but it is widespread. Such a step is wrong without sufficient cause, and it is in breach of she royal commission's recommendations.
      There is something profoundly ironic about the fact that, although the royal commission was set up because of miscarriages of justice and concluded that an organisation must be set up to review such miscarriages and that the right to silence should not be abolished, the Government refuse to set up a miscarriages of justice review body, but have decided to abolish the right to silence. This is not merely wrong in principle; it is doubly wrong that it should be done in this way.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will make a reasoned case, and not simply a political speech. Every previous Home Secretary who raised the issue did so with some awareness of its constitutional sensitivity and importance. That was very much the hallmark of the debate when the right to silence was abolished in Northern Ireland.
      Whether removal of the right to silence is right or wrong, it is unquestionably deeply important. What concerns people more than practically anything else is that, in this case, the action appears to be being taken not after agonising thought and consideration but following a flick of political rhetoric at a party conference. We must hear a much more reasoned case tonight before taking such a step.
      This is not the way to legislate. Indeed, it is not the way to do anything. In my judgment, if we abolish this fundamental constitutional protection without exercising very great care, our action will rebound, and not before long.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: The decision to amend the right to silence in this way—in effect, to abolish it—was not the subject of a piece of political rhetoric that just came out of the air to impress an audience of Conservatives at a party conference. Indeed, this provision has for many years been on the brink of being introduced. For as long as I have been a member of the Bar, a number of very experienced lawyers have been thinking about the right to silence and urging its end.
      I have been a practising barrister for 30 years, mostly as a defence lawyer, and I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Nor do I share the views of the majority of members of the Criminal Bar Association or those of the majority of members of the Runciman Royal Commission. There is room for two views. I merely make the point that in this country a respectable body of opinion—I consider myself to be reasonably respectable—has for many years held that it is time to abort the right to silence. Many of the people who hold that opinion are in the judiciary and have therefore spent a lifetime hearing both sides of criminal trials. So the hon. Gentleman should not give the world the impression that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pulled this proposal out of the air.
      I appreciate and apply the "clear benefit and no detriment" guidelines set out by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The "clear benefit" is the removal of an artificial nonsense. In ordinary life, the way in which a
      266
      person responds to an allegation against him may indicate whether he is guilty or innocent, but in a criminal trial the situation is wholly artificial as the right to silence means that the accused person need not respond at all, either when he is being questioned by the police or at his trial. No adverse conclusion may be drawn from his silence. Over the years, jurymen have said to me, "I would have convicted that bounder because I am sure he's guilty, but I didn't do so because the judge said several times, 'You must not convict this man merely on the basis of a conclusion from his silence.'"
      Mr. David Ashby: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: When I have developed my argument a little I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend, who I realise does not share my views.
      There is another "clear benefit". Let me refer to something about which we are all massively concerned. Like the Runciman Royal Commission, we have spent a great deal of time considering miscarriages of justice. How did these arise? They were the result of dishonest statements by police officers, going back, as the hon. Gentleman said, to the 1970s—indeed, to the 1960s. I refer to the false confessions, the verbals. Why did police officers verbal and invent false confessions? Because they were frustrated by the right to silence. Just when they felt that they would be able to secure the evidence demonstrating a man's guilt, the rules of evidence and the rules of the court prevented them from asking the questions or getting the answers. [Interruption.] I do not for one moment justify any false activity. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will not be childish. For 30 years of my life, I have defended people pleading not guilty. I certainly do not defend any kind of police misbehaviour in connection with trials. However, I must make the point that if it is possible to remove the cause of such behaviour, there would be very substantial benefit in doing so.
      Mr. Ashby: My hon. and learned Friend has cited the case of a juryman. Would not it be more accurate to say that that person was prepared to convict on the basis of suspicion? Does not the abolition of the right to silence and the comments to be made by the judge amount to the judge's saying, "Members of the jury, you may now give weight to what is a suspicion and nothing else"? My hon. and learned Friend has been in court time after time after time. Has not he said—indeed, I have heard him say—to juries, "You should not convict on suspicion. You should convict only on evidence"? Is not this exactly the point?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: Of course, but we are talking about changing the law so that such a point cannot be made.
      Later in my speech, I shall make common ground even with the hon. Member for Sedgefield, although I shall be on the other side of the main line. We have had what is, in effect, an archaic and artificial distortion. We have had it for many years and for a very good reason: that we could not trust police officers always to make truthful statements. The right to silence represented some protection to an accused person in those circumstances. It was not a complete protection. The police could still verbal, but there was an inhibition deriving from the right to silence. The court could throw out an allegation that obviously did not fit all the sense or facts of the situation.

      267
      Now that we have tape-recorded interviews, there is no longer the same justification for fearing a police verbal. Where there is tape recording of an interview it is practically impossible to invent a false confession. A copy of the tape is handed to the defence, who can ensure that the police have not engaged in any falsification of it. All experience indicates that since the introduction of tape-recorded interviews trials have progressed on the basis of the other evidence rather than that of any verbal admissions. If the tape contains a clear admission of guilt—a clear confession—defendants plead guilty more often than they used to. That, too, is a "clear benefit". If more of the guilty plead guilty and are convicted we avoid the other miscarriage of justice—the acquittal of the guilty.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: Every sensible person would probably agree that the introduction of tape recordings represented a big and long-overdue step forward. However, it is perfectly possible for a person to be intimidated before the tape recorder is switched on. It is perfectly possible for the police to rehearse with suspects what they will say and, perhaps, do a deal with them—to release or agree not to charge girlfriends, for example. It was in such circumstances that the Guildford confessions were obtained. All those confessions would have been obtained had there been tape recordings. I refer to a remarkable case in the west midlands, where one might expect to find the pioneers in this area. Three people were persuaded to admit on tape that they had committed the murder of PC Salt even though they could not possibly have done so. They were in due course released.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is a well-known and greatly respected campaigner for the rights of those acquitted of serious crimes. The Guildford case took place before the tape-recording of interviews—I believe that tape recordings should be used for terrorist offences, too—and before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which substantially curtailed the freedom of the police and increased the powers of the courts to do away with any police activity that was suspect for the defendant.
      I have no specific knowledge of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions in Birmingham. However, what he is saying is attributable to police behaviour whether there is a right to silence or not. If police officers want to continue, without being provoked by frustration but for some other reason, to behave as the hon. Gentleman said, it will not matter whether the right to silence exists, so his point is irrelevant to the one that I am making.
      7 pm
      I have tabled a number of amendments and shall try to deal with them as quickly as possible. As I believe that we no longer need a right to silence because of the tape-recording of interviews, the trial will make more sense to a jury if we do away with the right to silence and rely on tape-recorded interviews. As the introduction of tape-recorded interviews is my reason for supporting the removal of the right to silence, it would be inconsistent and illogical if I were content to see a man lose the right to silence, having been interviewed without having his words recorded—hence amendment No. 316.
      If interviews are to be adduced in evidence, they must be tape-recorded. My view is fortified by the growing
      268
      evidence that, in more and more cases, the accused is said to have confessed or made a statement that is inconsistent with his innocence before he reaches the police station where the tape recording machinery is. With the development of technology, I see little reason why police cars should not have voice-activated tape recorders, nor why police officers about to arrest somebody who may want to say something should not carry voice-activated tape recorders in their pockets. If somebody is alleged to have said something and it is not tape-recorded—incidentally, I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield that with no Police and Criminal Evidence Act protection there is no opportunity for him to call a solicitor before being interviewed—the evidence of any admission or statement that he has made should not be admitted in evidence. Those are my views and they are also the views of the Committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, which submitted evidence of that kind to the Runciman Royal Commission. That is my reason for tabling amendment No. 316.
      I tabled amendment No. 319 because total nonsense is inherent in clause 29, which no one has yet explained to me as a mistaken view. The clause says, first, that a court may draw such "inferences" from the accused's failure to mention a fact relied on in his defence either at questioning before the charge or at the stage of charging. Secondly, it says that those inferences may be drawn in three situations: first, where the court is considering whether there is a case to answer—a prima facie case; secondly, where there is no committal proceeding because the case is a fraud being transferred by another procedure to the Crown court; and, thirdly, in a child assault case for which there are no committal proceedings because it is being transferred under the new procedure.
      The nonsense is that, at the very stage when a submission of "no case to answer" is being made, the court can have no idea whether the defendant will rely on some fact for his defence because he does not have to disclose the details of his defence. So the clause asks the judge or magistrate to do something that he cannot possibly do. That is absurd.
      If I am told that that is covered by the words in line 17:
      "being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed"
      and that no court could say that the accused could reasonably be expected to mention those matters, I would reply that saying something nonsensical and then saying that what has just been said could not reasonably be expected to happen is double nonsense.
      I may be wrong. I may have missed a simple explanation. But if I am right, it is odd that no one has spotted the absurdity before, because the Bill has gone through its Committee stage and has existed for months. I think that I know why that might have happened. Recently, I spent a week at a judicial seminar where judges are taught how to be better judges. Such seminars are part of the improvement procedures and the Judicial Studies Board has been organising good seminars. I took the opportunity to ask several people why they had not spotted the mistake and the High Court judges, circuit judges and the stipendiary magistrates all told me that they had not been sent the Bill to read.
      It seems ridiculous that, when dealing with complicated, technical legislation, the Home Office does not automatically invite the class of person most able, by

      269
      experience, to help in ensuring that the legislation makes sense to consider the legislation. The one person who told me that the Bill had been read by her department was the Director of Public Prosecutions. If my point is right, although it was read the mistake was not spotted.
      My fourth amendment is No. 320. On the face of it, the Government seem to intend that an inference adverse to the accused can be drawn from silence and that that should be capable of being the only evidence against him before committal, for trial. No provision specifically states that silence is not enough to provide a prima facia case, that it can be added to other evidence to make such a case, but it cannot be relied on by itself. I expected to see such a provision in the Bill.
      The Government may not intend that silence alone should make a prima facia case. I have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary say as much at Question Time. Unless my memory betrays me, that point was also made strongly by the Criminal Law Revision Committee when it recommended the abolition of the right to silence in 1973. Unless the Bill says that it is excluded, as it would be under amendment No. 320, a court somewhere might say, "We know that there is not much evidence in this case, but the fact that the man remained silent when we think that he should have said something is so suspicious and such a proof of guilt that we shall have this man committed for trial". If I am right, that point should be amended in the Bill.
      Clause 30 deals with the accused's right to silence at trial. A judge should not have to put himself in the position of telling a defendant that he should go into the witness box, give evidence and be cross-examined, if an adverse comment is not to be made. That should happen only if there is no other way to get out of the predicament. It would be invidious for that to happen in front of a jury, but, even if it were done with the jury out of court, the accused may draw the conclusion that the judge is part of the prosecution rather than an independent arbiter of justice. The Lord Chief Justice has already spoken out strongly on that matter—more eloquently than I—and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take that on board.
      The simple alternative is that the judge says nothing. He leaves it to defence counsel and the defence solicitor to explain to the accused the consequences of not giving evidence. That is not a novel approach; it happens all the time. In normal circumstances, no judge needs to tell a defendant the consequences of his going into the witness box and saying that the prosecution witnesses are liars, cheats or frauds and that if he does so he may put his character before the jury. That is always left to the defendant's lawyers—his barristers and solicitors—and it should be the situation in this case. The lawyers should be trusted to tell the accused—if they do not there will be substantial grounds for appeal—that if he does not say anything an adverse comment may be made by the prosecution, the judge or both.
      My amendments Nos. 307 and 308 delete the offending passages in the Bill and my amendment No. 309 rewrites this important clause, first, to encompass the good features of the provision and, secondly, to add another constructive suggestion which applies where the accused is not represented by a solicitor or barrister. In such a case, the accused may need to be told that adverse inferences may be drawn from his failure to give evidence. He should be informed of that fact not by the judge, but by the clerk of
      270
      the court in the absence of the jury. If the accused person representing himself wants time to consider the position he should be given that time.
      The measure is contained in subsection (3) of my new insertion. I hope that my amendment is more elegant than the confused jumble of words which appear in the present Bill, although it may not be. It is certainly less confusing and simpler. The remaining amendments relating to the clause—Nos. 310, 311 and 312—are consequential to that amendment.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: In subsection (2)(c) of amendment No. 309, the hon. and learned Gentleman makes the proper point that when it appears to a court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence the accused should be excused from giving evidence. But would not that formulation apply still more strongly in relation to an interview by police officers when the accused is first seen by those who are investigating the alleged offence? If the hon. and learned Gentleman is to be consistent in his approach to these matters, such words need to be inserted in the Bill at a much earlier stage. Clearly, when people are represented before the court they are less at risk in terms of their physical or mental condition than when they are first interviewed by police officers.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am afraid that I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that what he says is sensible. My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard what he said and will take it on board. I am unable to agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks; I was looking for the passage to which he referred.
      Mr. Frank Cook: What about justice?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not doing justice; I am merely making suggestions to improve the legislation.
      Finally, I have an amendment to clause 31 which deals with the effect of the failure of the accused to account for objects and an amendment to clause 32 which deals with the failure of the accused to account for his presence elsewhere.
      I can make my point very quickly. It reverts to the first matter that I addressed in my speech. The right to silence should be removed or modified only when the accused is protected by a tape recording of questions and his answers to them. That is in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which the House passed precisely in order to give that protection. Hence, I have tabled amendment No. 317 to clause 31 and amendment No. 318 to clause 32.
      I am sorry if I have not pleased everyone. I have tried to be brief in my remarks. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take into account the fact that, first, I support the general thrust of the legislation, but, secondly, I think that some improvements can be made to it to safeguard the interests of accused people in the way in which the House would wish to safeguard their interests.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) spoke for 23 minutes and said that he had been brief. I promise the House that my speech will be substantially shorter because I have had the advantage

      271
      of addressing these questions in the Standing Committee, unlike the hon. and learned Member. Although he found fault with the work of the Committee, most issues have been canvassed there extensively.
      I did not wholly agree with the hon. and learned Member that there are two views about the merits of the right to silence. I think that there are many more views than that. It is not for us to pick and choose in the House the merits of individual lawyers. When we come to consider whether to take such a fundamental step as is encompassed in the Bill, we should listen to the views of those to whom the Government have entrusted the task of reflecting upon the matter.
      This is not a Government who turn lightly or frequently to the device of establishing royal commissions. In fact, throughout the Government's term of office, it is notable that royal commissions have been resorted to rarely. The fact that that should have been the Government's approach in respect of miscarriages of justice shows that there was a very serious problem which could not be tackled effectively by the normal political devices of weighing the arguments that are canvassed in the heat of the moment.
      Royal commissions are established in response to a serious public need for advice and we have before us the advice of two royal commissions which point broadly in the same direction. It is right to reflect on the oddity of establishing a royal commission focusing on miscarriages of justice—the reason for its existence was to tackle that problem—but yet not take fully on board or act upon its most serious core recommendation dealing with that question.
      The royal commission was quite explicit and I think that it is worth reminding the House of the words that it used in coming to a majority conclusion—and it was not a narrow majority, but a majority of nine to two. Paragraph 22 on page 54 of the Runciman commission report states:
      "The majority of us, however, believe that the possibility of an increase in convictions of the guilty is outweighed by the risk that the extra pressure on suspects to talk in the police station and the adverse influences invited if they do not may result in more convictions of the innocent."
      It recommends retaining the present caution and trial direction unamended. The report continues:
      "In taking this view, the majority acknowledge the frustration which many police officers feel when confronted with suspects who refuse to offer any explanation whatever of strong prima facie evidence that they have committed an offence. But they doubt whether the possibility of adverse comment at trial would make the difference which the police suppose."
      I believe that to be the core recommendation of the royal commission about this matter.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a Scottish Member, the hon. Gentleman might know that that is already a law in Scotland under the Criminal Justice Act 1980. I do not know what he is complaining about. Why should it not apply to England?
      Mr. Maclennan: I prefer to address the arguments that were deployed by the royal commission which had the opportunity of considering the laws of Scotland as well. I certainly intend to say something about the more germane experience in Northern Ireland, where the law has already been amended.
      I have two concerns. First, I am anxious that the change of law adumbrated in the proposal will have an effect on
      272
      the attitudes of the police to the significance of their efforts to extract comments from those who are apparently unwilling to give comments or explanations. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton on the importance of the recording of evidence, but, unfortunately, the clause does not deal only with evidence that is capable of being recorded. It also deals with the possibility that the fact that no statement was made before an accused person was taken into custody may be the subject of adverse comment, which is quite unacceptable. Too much weight is being placed by the Government and the Home Secretary on the expectation that to change the law in the way suggested will make a significant difference to conviction rates. There seems to be very little evidence to support that.
      In Northern Ireland, where the law has been changed, the evidence is that the vast majority of those charged with more serious offences—those brought under the prevention of terrorism legislation—remain silent. The courts in Northern Ireland have not found that the change in the law has led to a significant change in practice by those who might be regarded as hardened professionals.
      My second anxiety was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). It is likely to be the confused, the weak and the ill-advised who are the victims of the change in law. Those are the people who need the protection of a fundamental constitutional principle that has lasted a long time in this country. I do not find it easy to understand—I am genuinely puzzled—why a Government who proclaim their commitment to the basic
      principles of law and justice should hack at the roots of something that is so deeply imbedded in our criminal justice system and has survived for centuries. I am talking about the principle that no one should be under pressure to incriminate himself in court.
      The Home Secretary has discussed the subject in the House before. He did so when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. He began the process of eroding the right to silence in a number of measures, including the Financial Services Act 1986. He has an understandable personal track record of having hacked away at the roots of the tradition of the right to silence.
      The Home Secretary said in those debates that he was taking away the fundamental principle of criminal law—the right of someone not to incriminate himself. He said that in the Chamber and admitted that it was a fundamental principle. I should like to hear him advance stronger arguments when he replies to the debate on why he now believes it is right to deal with the matter, not in the narrower context of the Financial Services Act, the Insolvency Act 1986, the Building Societies Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987, but across the board. The House expects the Home Secretary's explanations for such measures to go further than those that he has given to party conferences.
      Some countries believe that the issue is one of high constitutional import—as the hon. Member for Sedgefield said—and is so important that it should be enshrined in a basic constitutional provision. The United States is a prime example. I believe that it is appropriate to enshrine something so fundamental to the protection of the innocent in basic law and I hope that we shall ultimately achieve that position. I recognise that that will require a substantial change—more than a change of Home Secretary within the present Government.

      273
      I have had the opportunity of canvassing my views at some length on other occasions. I shall not, therefore, delay the Home Secretary any longer. I greatly look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have some slight experience in the courts, not only in Scotland, but in England and abroad. I have never comprehended the concept of the right to silence, which is not a constitutional right—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: In Scotland.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is not a constitutional right anywhere.
      In this country, before the end of the last century, at different dates in England and Scotland, the accused—as I would call him, others might call him the defendant—was not allowed to give evidence. He was an exhibit. The right to silence was necessary because he could not give evidence. If it was alleged that he had said something, he could not claim that he had not said it because he could not give evidence and say that he had not said it.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I ask my question with diffidence, but was not that policy to demonstrate clearly that the burden of proof lay on the prosecution? It is for the prosecution to make, or demonstrate, the case and I may stand by my right to silence in the face of that demonstration. Therefore, the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is misjudged in this context.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Not at all—the person accused was completely deprived of the ability to deny what anyone alleged that he had said because he was not allowed to speak. He was just an object on view.
      Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, I will not give way. I am not wrong. I know a little about the law. No doubt the hon. Member knows more—
      Mr. Ashby: Yes.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have defended one or two people and appeared in one or two courts in my day, but obviously the hon. Gentleman has much more knowledge than I do.
      Mr. Ashby: Yes, I have.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Let me speak about the right to silence. Every citizen on this globe is required to give evidence. He can be called back from Australia, New York or anywhere else and be forced to give evidence on pain of contempt of court. That is true of everyone except the one citizen whose evidence it is essential to hear—the accused. I always thought it was ludicrous that the one witness whose evidence was important should have the right not to be heard. One of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members said that the weak, being inarticulate and confused, might convict themselves. But hang on a minute—suppose that the witnesses compelled to give evidence were weak, inarticulate and confused. The accused cannot complain, "You can't call that chap—he's weak, inarticulate and confused." The jury must make their own judgments about witnesses, and the accused is the principal witness.
      274
      7.30 pm
      I propose the restoration of the law in Scotland as it was until 1928. When a person was arrested, they immediately had to record their account publicly, before a magistrate—before they went to the Barlinnie school of schooling and invented a defence. Unfortunately, the present Lord Chancellor said that that must not apply unless the accused consented, so lawyers go before the court and the accused does not need to give an account.
      The law of Scotland was so sensible and easy until 1928, because the accused had to go before the magistrate immediately, to give his account of events before he got to any lawyer who could invent an account for him. The right to silence is a fallacious concept, and it is utterly wrong that the principal witness should be given the absurd and historically misunderstood right to silence.
      Let us consider verbals. I have known hundreds of cases in which the police alleged that the accused had said something that he denied saying. Nothing that is unrecorded before a magistrate or an independent person should be admitted in evidence. It is only too easy to claim that the accused said, "It's a fair cop—I took it because I needed to buy a house." If one wants the police to be trusted, the courts to be respected and the accused to have fair rights as to what he did or did not say, there is a simple equation: the right to silence goes, in exchange for the necessity that nothing that the accused is alleged to have said can be produced in evidence unless it was recorded by an independent person. That would be a fair solution.
      I am sorry that my remarks were all about England, but I thought that I should intervene.
      Mr. David Trimble: I will not comment on the situation in Scotland and the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), but I will refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), which proceeded on an entirely false basis. In this context, references to the right to silence are wholly misconceived. The Bill does not affect the right to silence properly so called, which is the privilege against self-incrimination and means that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. Nothing in the Bill in any way changes that. It affects only what some people loosely and inaccurately describe as the right to silence.
      The Bill relates to inferences to be drawn from silence and to whether or not the judge can comment on an accused person's failure to say anything. Glanville Williams, probably the most distinguished academic lawyer in England this century, described as wholly unreasonable the rule that a judge cannot comment on an obvious and relevant fact that the jury may take into account. No one ever said that juries must take it into account.
      Most of the comments made about the right to silence will give a completely false impression to anyone reading this debate. I was appalled that it was even suggested that the presumption of innocence was in some way affected by the Bill. It does not change that, or the requirement that guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Those matters are not involved.
      I acquit the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but it annoyed me that no reference was made to the experience in Northern Ireland. The Bill's provisions are word for word the same as those in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which

      275
      has been in operation for six years. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to find out what happens in Northern Ireland, so I gathered together some judgments and placed them in the Library and sent copies to Opposition Members who I felt were in particular need of them. I also referred to the matter in Committee and I shall not repeat the remarks that I made there. If hon. Members want to learn more about the Northern Ireland experience, I refer them to speeches made in Committee and to the judgments placed in the Library. I am disappointed that even at this stage no effort has been made to refer to the Northern Ireland experience.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to know about practices in Northern Ireland, but it was perfectly open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to investigate and to take his Select Committee to Northern Ireland. He could also have called evidence and discovered what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past six years—and why there have not been complaints by practising lawyers or the judiciary in Northern Ireland.
      Reference was made to Richard Ferguson, a former Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament for Stormont, but he has been practising in England since before the 1988 order was implemented, so his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt.
      Government amendment No. 336 is a response to Lord Chief Justice Taylor. Northern Ireland judges have operated the procedure about which Lord Chief Justice Taylor complains for half a dozen years without any difficulty. However, if that amendment will smooth the passage of the Bill through another place, the change is not terribly significant. It is not of great importance whether the accused is advised by his lawyer, the judge, other persons or other means: it is important that the accused be advised.
      I told the Minister of State in Committee that if any of the Bill's provisions were changed, changes should immediately be made also to the 1988 Northern Ireland order. It would be wholly unreasonable for the House to alter the Bill in respect of England and Wales without immediately doing the same for Northern Ireland. I am glad that amendment No 360 will do that, even though it means using the Bill to amend a Northern Ireland Order in Council. I entirely approve, and I thank the Government for following our advice and making sure that changes will apply simultaneously in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I agree with practically every word of his speech. I can assure him that, even were I not following him in the debate, I should certainly have referred to the Northern Ireland experience and to the fact that this legislation is very closely modelled on and, indeed, virtually word for word identical with the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, although from the speeches before that of the hon. Gentleman one would have assumed that we were discussing a wholly novel constitutional departure for the United Kingdom. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman clearly and powerfully pointed out, it is nothing of the kind.
      This group of amendments relates entirely to clauses 29 to 33 of the Bill, which would allow proper inferences to
      276
      be drawn from a person's silence in court or when asked certain questions by the police. As has been pointed out, they are often described as being concerned with the right to silence. Although that is a misleading description, I certainly accept that the matter—though not a constitutional innovation or novelty in the United Kingdom—is of considerable constitutional significance. The description is misleading, because nothing in the Bill would take away any person's right to remain silent if he so chooses either under police questioning or in court. Under our law, that right is not, of course, an absolute right, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, referring to my track record. There are certain circumstances in which a person may be required to give answers—for example, when questioned by an investigator from the Serious Fraud Office exercising special investigation powers under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, which built on the powers contained in the Financial Services Act 1986, for which I had some ministerial responsibility.
      I confess that I cannot recall how the Liberal Democrats or their predecessors voted when those clauses came before Parliament, but no doubt the official Opposition did not comment on that during the debate because they fully supported the introduction of those powers and the removal of the right in those particular circumstances. Subject to those existing exceptions, the provisions in clauses 29 to 33 of the Bill will not compel any person to answer questions or penalise them for not doing so.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: If my right hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that the right to silence remains after these provisions—I agree that there is an element of a play on words—what kind of right is it when, if one decides to exercise it, one can be adversely criticised?
      Mr. Howard: There is nothing inconsistent in the two propositions. What criticism may be made will depend on the circumstances in which someone remains silent. There is a clear difference between the proposition that is already enshrined in part of the law, which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and which I have just pointed out, which compels someone to answer questions in certain circumstances, and the entirely different situation in which no one is compelled to say anything, but they know that their silence can be the subject of comment depending on the circumstances. That is an absolutely clear distinction and was underlined with considerable force by the hon. Member for Upper Bann.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Blair: The debate will proceed on a false basis if we have what I think in the end is a fairly semantic argument. No one has suggested that, technically, one is compelled to speak or that there is a legal obligation to speak, but if, when one has failed to answer questions, an adverse inference can be drawn, whatever the technical position the reality is that the right to silence has been interfered with. Quite honestly, the Home Secretary would do his case more justice if he admitted that and justified it rather than playing with words.
      Mr. Howard: This does not touch on the fundamental arguments, which I am of course coming to. The hon. Member for Upper Bann was absolutely right in his analysis of the position.
      Mr. Blair: Technically.
      Mr. Howard: It is not a question of technicality, but of the right approach to this fundamental matter. The hon. Member for Upper Bann was right, but I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr.Blair) that that does not affect the fact that there are fundamental arguments to be addressed, and of course I will address them.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I am very interested in this and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Will he explain to me the circumstances in which a judge will make comment or in which inferences can be drawn from someone's silence? At what point in the proceedings could that happen? I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to address himself to this point. It is said that criminals will know criminals, that people with a criminal record and people with criminal tendencies will be nailed by the removal of the right to silence, and that that is a substantial justification for it. Will my right hon. and learned Friend address himself to that and to the effect of the removal of the right to silence on the vulnerable, the weak and inadequate, and also intelligent people, who can also be intimidated by the circumstances of being questioned? It is not just the vulnerable who will be affected.
      Mr. Howard: To answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question directly, in normal circumstances comment would be made at the end of the trial. It would be open to the prosecution to suggest that an adverse inference could be drawn from the defendant's silence. It would be open to counsel for the defendant to explain away that silence. It would be open to the judge to make such comment as he thinks fit. It would certainly be open to the judge to comment that, in all the particular circumstances of the case, the jury might well decide that it was not appropriate to draw any adverse inference from the exercise of the right to silence by the defendant. And in the end—this is the absolutely crucial point—it will be for the jury to decide what weight to attach to, and to what extent it is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case to draw any inference from, the silence.
      Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain what are the circumstances in which a defendant could use the right to silence without it carrying an adverse inference for the defendant? That would help to explain my right hon and learned Friend's case, with which I agree entirely.
      Mr. Howard: There is such an infinite range of circumstances that it is difficult to pick out particular examples, but it might well be the case that, in a particular set of circumstances, if someone was feeling unwell, was confused or not in a position to give a proper account in answer to questions that were put to him, the judge might say to the jury—though it would always be a matter for the jury—"You may well think that, in all the circumstances of this case, having regard to what you have heard, it would not be right to draw any adverse inference from the silence of the accused in this case." But in the end, having heard all the evidence, it is a matter that the jury would be entitled to take into account.
      The matter derives its origins quite apart from the criminal law review committee, to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield referred: although clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill are, for all practical purposes, exact replicas of the
      278
      draft clauses in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report, the provision finds its origin in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. That order was made in October 1988 and came into effect in December 1988 and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Upper Bann, it has operated to good effect and without difficulty since then. When the order was introduced, my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), now the Foreign Secretary—gave an undertaking that the legislation on this subject would be introduced for England and Wales at the earliest opportunity after the report of the working group that he had set up had been received.
      There is therefore a respectable history to the matter. It is not something that has been plucked out of the ether by me or by the present Government. It is true that a minority and not a majority of the royal commission recommended that changes of this kind should be made, but it is also true—no one has yet commented on this significant fact—that a majority of the judges who gave evidence to the royal commission were in favour of such a change.
      We propose simply to remove the artificial and outdated restrictions which prevent a court or jury from hearing about a person's silence and taking it into account in reaching a verdict. Indeed, our proposals have accurately been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as a freedom of information Act for juries.
      Mr. Ashby: I have been following the debate with great interest and a number of very important points have been made. However, I do not entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. What concerns me and a number of others is that when someone is arrested there is always a great deal of confusion and the person may be wholly innocent and completely astounded. Indeed, I can think of an incident that happened only a couple of weeks ago that would give rise to such a situation. If we are going to start playing around with the burden of proof—I agree that we are talking not about the right to silence but about the burden of proof—should it not be within the confines of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and relate only to tape-recorded interviews?
      Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in a moment when I speak in detail to the amendments, but, in answer to that question, I can say that, first, the proposals do not amount to a change in the burden of proof; it will still be for the prosecution to establish the burden of proof in every case. Secondly—this is the critical point—there may well be circumstances in which someone is confused, as my hon. Friend described, in a way that should properly be taken into account in assessing what inference should be drawn from his silence and what weight should be attached to it. That is precisely what will happen; it is precisely how the silence will be taken into account and it is precisely the type of factor that the jury will be left to decide.
      There has been some questioning of the extent to which the change will make a difference. The findings of the Royal Commission on criminal justice contained the following paragraph:
      "In the view of many police officers, a significant number of suspects, by refusing to answer questions, seriously impede the efforts of investigators to fulfil their function of establishing the facts of the case. The initial aim of these suspects may be to avoid being charged but, if this is not successful, they may subsequently fabricate a defence which will not be revealed until their trial, at which point it may be impracticable to investigate and detect the

      279
      fabrication. Alternatively, they may remain silent, offer no explanations, and yet try to discredit the prosecution evidence or intimidate witnesses or victims in order to deter them from giving evidence. By such means, some criminals are, in the view of the police and many others, taking advantage of a feature of the criminal justice system left over from a past era when there were far fewer safeguards to protect the defendant than there are today".
      The royal commission also found that it was part of the experience of police officers that
      "although most people who are arrested do answer questions inviting an explanation of evidence against them, a considerable number of experienced or professional criminals do not".
      A recent survey by the Association of Chief Police Officers found that offenders with five or more previous convictions were more than three times as likely to remain silent in police stations than those with no previous convictions.
      Mr. Mullin: Does the Home Secretary agree that the category of people most likely to claim the right to silence at present are police officers charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice?
      Mr. Howard: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but, of course, any changes that we make would apply equally to that category of defendant in which the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest and to any other category of defendant, so it may yet be that, on reflection, we shall have the support of the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby tonight.
      Mr. Mullin: Every cloud has a silver lining.
      Mr. Howard: A minority of the royal commission concluded that it would be right to change the law so that inferences could be drawn from an offender's silence in relevant circumstances. The Government agree with that minority view. We believe that it is reasonable to expect an accused person to offer an explanation of circumstances that appear to be incriminating and that if he does not do so there is no reason why a court or jury should be prevented from taking account of his silence when considering the strength of the case against him.
      Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly talked about the jury being able to reach a decision in the light of the defendant's failure to give evidence. What has he to say about the direction that a judge should give in such circumstances? At present, if a defendant chooses to exercise what has been described as the right to silence, the judge will indicate to the jury that it is a perfectly proper constitutional position for the defendant to adopt. Under the rules proposed by the Home Secretary, what indication is the judge supposed to give to the jury? Does the Home Secretary accept that, if under the proposals, the judge gives a direction to the effect that the right to silence has been exercised, in most jury trials it will be tantamount to an indication from the judge that he is extremely unhappy with the defendant's case? Will not that lead many juries to conclude that they should convict?
      Mr. Howard: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point and I am surprised that he made it. Although his experience of the courts might be a trifle more recent than mine, I am sure that he will share my experience that juries are at least as likely to reject such indications from judges as they are to accept them.
      280
      However, by way of a direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the position is this: as a result of the Government's amendment to which I am about to refer, the jury will have seen explained to the defendant the fact that, if he chooses to remain silent, an adverse inference could be drawn from his silence. The jury will then be told by the judge in his summing up that it is open to them to draw such an inference, but that the nature of that inference and the weight that they attach to it will depend on the circumstances of the case. As with every other circumstance of the case, the judge will be able to express his view to the jury, but he will tell the jury—as he is presently obliged to do in relation to every other circumstance—that, in the end, it will be for the jury to form their own view and for them to decide. Therefore, the matter will be treated in precisely the same way as every other relevant circumstance and every other relevant piece of evidence.
      I deal now with the Government amendments to clause 30, which has already been described pretty accurately by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Government amendments Nos. 333 to 340 and 355 and 356 would make a minor change in the procedure while leaving the basic effect of the clause unchanged. They deal with concerns that have been expressed by the Lord Chief Justice. Contrary to many reports, he has consistently supported the principle of drawing inferences from silence, but has expressed concerns about the procedure that is presently embodied in clause 30.
      The amended clause, like the present one, will ensure that the court can draw proper inference from the accused person's silence in court, but, instead of calling on a defendant to give evidence, a judge or magistrate would satisfy himself in the presence of the jury that the defendant was aware of his opportunity to give evidence and the possible consequences of not doing so. Lord Taylor told me that he was content with the changes that the Government amendments would make to clause 30. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, amendments 357 to 360 would effect equivalent changes in the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
      Before I finish, I shall deal briefly with some of the other amendments. With regard to amendments Nos. 249 and 250, it is surely entirely illogical to limit provisions to proceedings triable only on indictment. Rules that are just when a serious offence is being tried cannot be unjust when a lesser one is being tried, or vice versa.
      I welcome the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) for the main thrust of our proposals, but, with reference to his amendments Nos. 319 and 313, I disagree with the proposal that inferences under clause 29 should not be drawn at the committal or transfer stage. It is important that the court sees the whole prosecution case when deciding whether there is a case to answer. The amendments would allow "ambush" defences at committal without allowing any inferences to be drawn as to their veracity, in view of the fact that the same line of defence could have been advanced at an earlier stage.
      8 pm
      I believe that the amendments that would impose compulsory safeguards, such as tape-recording or access to legal advice, before any inference could be drawn are unnecessary. The police are required to observe the safeguards laid down in the codes of practice issued under

      281
      the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 whenever they interview an arrested person. There is no special need to make the application of clauses 29 to 33 depend on the observance of those safeguards, as proposed in amendments 237, 245 and 253. I believe that it should be for the courts to decide a defendant's guilt or innocence on the weight of the evidence put before them, and to draw such inferences as appear proper, as they would for any evidence obtained by the police.
      Mr. Blair: The Opposition amendments and the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Burton are designed for the same effect—to place safeguards so that in effect such inferences can be drawn only at the police station—but is the Home Secretary not aware that his proposal would go wider than that, and deal with the time before the suspect arrives at the police station, before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act safeguards come into effect
      Mr. Howard: I was about to deal with that precise point, with reference to amendments Nos. 252 and 314. I disagree with the proposition that inferences should be restricted to the period after cautioning. Sometimes it can be sensible to draw an inference from what a suspect says or does not say when first encountered by the police in suspicious circumstances. Courts will be able to draw inferences only from a failure to mention a fact that the defendant could reasonably have been expected to mention.
      That approach is entirely similar to the idea that a person's comment at that stage should be taken into account. That was another recommendation of the royal commission, which led to its further recommendation, which we accept, that any such admission should be put to the suspect at the beginning of the first tape-recorded interview.
      Finally, amendment No. 320, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, would provide that an inference drawn from silence under clause 29 could not by itself provide that a person had a case to answer. My hon. and learned Friend said that he had not been given a satisfactory explanation of why the amendment was unnecessary. It is unnecessary because clause 33(3) already provides:
      "A person shall not be committed for trial, have a case to answer or be convicted of an offence"
      on the basis of an inference from silence alone.
      My final recommendation to the House is that the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend and by the Opposition are not necessary, and should be rejected. I invite the House to accept the amendments in my name and to reject any others that may be put to the vote.
      Mr. Blair: We will press the amendments to a vote, first because we do not believe that the Home Secretary has adequately justified the abolition of an important fundamental principle of British law—a constitutional principle upon which people are entitled to rely. Our second reason is that the Government proposal, without any proper safeguards, will go far further than anyone has ever recommended on the abolition of the right of silence.
      It may be argued that the phrase "the abolition of the right to silence," is not technically accurate, but if people are to be at risk of an adverse inference being drawn if they do not speak, they will in fact be under pressure to speak, whatever the technical position may be. The question is
      282
      whether that is right. To abolish the right to silence with no proper safeguards, which goes further than even the minority report of the royal commission, is not only wrong in principle but foolhardy and the House will regret it. We should therefore reject the proposal tonight.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I believe that I am the only non-lawyer to speak on this group of amendments. I do so with the greatest diffidence, as hon. Members will understand, but I want to make clear what my perceptions of my country are. English law has always had at its heart the right to silence.
      Lawyers may say that I am misappropriating that term, but it is fundamental to my perception that no inference may be taken from silence. I know that an extension has been made into fraud cases, and that that is now under challenge in the European Court. We shall see whether that law will stand that test.
      Instinctively, as a Conservative, I would argue that the burden of proof for such a significant change lies with those who wish to initiate that change. I have not heard any arguments which conclusively demonstrate why the change is imperative. Therefore, as a Conservative, I stand by that right, and I say that the case has not been proven. I would go with the three royal commission reports on the matter, which we seem so eager to set aside.
      I call out passionately for conservatism in such matters. When I think of my view of my country—that is all that we can express on such occasions—I think of Sir Thomas More's innocence protested by his silence. I see that principle march through our history; I watch how the world is changing fervidly; I see the same principle instituted in the constitution of the United States, drawing on our own experience. Are we so lightly to set it aside for the sake of the exigencies of the present, and our current fear of rising crime?
      That rule has stood us well in good times and in bad. In the placidity of the 1950s, no one argued that we should do away with it. In the turbulence of other times, no one insisted that we should do away with it. We should have more confidence in our systems. In my view, the Government have not demonstrated the burden of proof that, in the face of the royal commission reports, we should make such a change.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 283.

      Division No. 202]

      [8.07 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Berry, Roger

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Betts, Clive

      Ainger, Nick

      Blair, Tony

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Boateng, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Keith

      Alton, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

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

      Ashby, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ashton, Joe

      Burden, Richard

      Austin-Walker, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Barnes, Harry

      Caborn, Richard

      Barron, Kevin

      Callaghan, Jim

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Bonn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cann, Jamie

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Benton, Joe

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clapham, Michael

      283

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jamieson, David

      Clelland, David

      Janner, Greville

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Coffey, Ann

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jowell, Tessa

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Keen, Alan

      Cousins, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Cox, Tom

      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

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Darling, Alistair

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davidson, Ian

      Lewis, Terry

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Denham, John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dewar, Donald

      McAllion, John

      Dixon, Don

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dobson, Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McFall, John

      Dowd, Jim

      McKelvey, William

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McLeish, Henry

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maclennan, Robert

      Enright, Derek

      McMaster, Gordon

      Etherington, Bill

      McNamara, Kevin

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McWilliam, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mahon, Alice

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Marek, Dr John

      Flynn, Paul

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Foulkes, George

      Martlew, Eric

      Fraser, John

      Maxton, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Meacher, Michael

      Galbraith, Sam

      Meale, Alan

      Galloway, George

      Michael, Alun

      Gapes, Mike

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Garrett, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      George, Bruce

      Milburn, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Miller, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gordon, Mildred

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Graham, Thomas

      Morley, Elliot

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gunnell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hain, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Hall, Mike

      Murphy, Paul

      Hanson, David

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Heppell, John

      Olner, William

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Parry, Robert

      Hoey, Kate

      Patchett, Terry

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Pendry, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Radice, Giles

      Hutton, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Illsley, Eric

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ingram, Adam

      Reid, Dr John

      284

      Rendel, David

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Straw, Jack

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Turner, Dennis

      Rogers, Allan

      Tyler, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Vaz, Keith

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wallace, James

      Ruddock, Joan

      Walley, Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Watson, Mike

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Short, Clare

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Simpson, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wilson, Brian

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

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wise, Audrey

      Soley, Clive

      Worthington, Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wray, Jimmy

      Spellar, John

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Neil Gerrard.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Congdon, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Conway, Derek

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Amass, David

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cran, James

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

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

      Atkins, Robert

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Day, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Baldry, Tony

      Devlin, Tim

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bates, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Batiste, Spencer

      Duncan, Alan

      Beggs, Roy

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dunn, Bob

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Eggar, Tim

      Bitten, Rt Hon John

      Elletson, Harold

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Evennett, David

      Bowis, John

      Faber, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Brazier, Julian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bright, Graham

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Forth, Eric

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Burt, Alistair

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gale, Roger

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gallie, Phil

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Cash, William

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Churchill, Mr

      Garnier, Edward

      Clappison, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Gillen, Cheryl

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Coe, Sebastian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      285

      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, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Needham, Richard

      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

      Hayes, Jerry

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heald, Oliver

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Paice, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pawsey, James

      Horam, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Richards, Rod

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jessel, Toby

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Soames, Nicholas

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

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Knox, Sir David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Legg, Barry

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Sproat, Iain

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lidington, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lightbown, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Allan

      Lord, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Luff, Peter

      Sumberg, David

      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, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Madel, Sir David

      Thomason, Roy

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Malone, Gerald

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mans, Keith

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marland, Paul

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

      Marlow, Tony

      Tracey, Richard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Trend, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Trimble, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Trotter, Neville

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      286

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wilkinson, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Willetts, David

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Wilshire, David

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Waller, Gary

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Wood, Timothy

      Waterson, Nigel

      Yeo, Tim

      Watts, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wells, Bowen

      Whitney, Ray

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Amendment accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 316, in page 19, line 19, after 'be' insert
      `and provided that such questioning or charging shall have been tape-recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.'—[Mr. Michael.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 286.

      Division No. 203]

      [8.20 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cox, Tom

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Allen, Graham

      Dafis, Cynog

      Alton, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Darling, Alistair

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davidson, Ian

      Ashby, David

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Ashton, Joe

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barnes, Harry

      Denham, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      Battle, John

      Dixon, Don

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dobson, Frank

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bell, Stuart

      Dowd, Jim

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Benton, Joe

      Enright, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Etherington, Bill

      Berry, Roger

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Betts, Clive

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Blair, Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boateng, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flynn, Paul

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

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burden, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Byers, Stephen

      Fraser, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Callaghan, Jim

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Garrett, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      George, Bruce

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grocott, Bruce

      Coffey, Ann

      Gunnell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hall, Mike

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hanson, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Harvey, Nick

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Heppell, John

      287

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Murphy, Paul

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Home Robertson, John

      Olner, William

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Parry, Robert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ingram, Adam

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Radice, Giles

      Jamieson, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Janner, Greville

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rogers, Allan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooker, Jeff

      Keen, Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Short, Clare

      Lewis, Terry

      Simpson, Alan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

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

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Soley, Clive

      McAllion, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Speller, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McFall, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKelvey, William

      Stevenson, George

      McLeish, Henry

      Stott, Roger

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Straw, Jack

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Madden, Max

      Turner, Dennis

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Tyler, Paul

      Mahon, Alice

      Vaz, Keith

      Mendelson, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Marek, Dr John

      Wallace, James

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Walley, Joan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Martlew, Eric

      Watson, Mike

      Maxton, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Meacher, Michael

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Meale, Alan

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      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, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Mudie, George

      Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      Mullin, Chris

      288

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Amess, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Atkins, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      French, Douglas

      Baldry, Tony

      Gale, Roger

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Gallie, Phil

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bates, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Garnier, Edward

      Beggs, Roy

      Gill, Christopher

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gillen, Cheryl

      Bendall, Vivian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gorst, John

      Booth, Hartley

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowis, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hague, William

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heald, Oliver

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cash, William

      Hendry, Charles

      Churchill, Mr

      Hicks, Robert

      Clappison, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Horam, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Congdon, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Jack, Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan, Alan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dunn, Bob

      Knapman, Roger

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Elletson, Harold

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

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evennett, David

      Legg, Barry

      Faber, David

      Leigh, Edward

      289

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lightbown, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Luff, Peter

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Maclean, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Madel, Sir David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spring, Richard

      Malone, Gerald

      Sproat, Iain

      Mans, Keith

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marland, Paul

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marlow, Tony

      Steen, Anthony

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stephen, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stewart, Allan

      Mates, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Sumberg, David

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Merchant, Piers

      Sykes, John

      Mills, Iain

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thomason, Roy

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      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

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Viggers, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Page, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Paice, James

      Waller, Gary

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Watts, John

      Pawsey, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Whitney, Ray

      Pickles, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Willetts, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Richards, Rod

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wolfson, Mark

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wood, Timothy

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Sackville, Tom

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 208, in page 19, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
      '(a) a magistrates' court, in deciding whether to grant an application for dismissal made by the accused under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application for dismissal of charge in course of proceedings with a view to transfer for trial);'
      No. 209, in page 19, line 32, at end insert—
      `( ) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer;'
      No. 210, in page 20, line 11, at end insert—
      290
      `( ) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 36 of this Act, this section shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the grant of an application for dismissal was a reference to the committal of the accused for trial.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 30

      EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S SILENCE AT TRIAL
      Amendments made: No. 333, in page 20, line 13, leave out `to (7)' and insert 'and (4)'.
      No. 334, in page 20, line 16, leave out 'be called upon to'.
      No. 335, in page 20, line 18, leave out from 'if' to end of line 20 and insert
      ',at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, his legal representative informs the court that the accused will give evidence or, where he is unrepresented, the court ascertains from him that he will give evidence'.
      No. 336, in page 20, leave out lines 21 to 37 and insert—
      '(2) Where this subsection applies, the court shall, at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, satisfy itself (in the case of proceedings on indictment, in the presence of the jury) that the accused is aware that the stage has been reached at which evidence can be given for the defence and that he can, if he wishes, give evidence and that, if he chooses not to give evidence, or having been sworn, without good cause refuses to answer any question, it will be permissible for the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.'.
      No. 337, in page 20, line 38, at beginning insert 'Where this subsection applies,'.
      No. 338, in page 20, line 39, leave out from 'inferences' to end of line 40 and insert
      'as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.'.
      No. 339, in page 20, line 43, leave out 'refusal to be sworn' and insert 'failure to do so'.
      No. 340, in page 21, leave out lines 16 to 18.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 31

      EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ACCOUNT FOR OBJECTS, SUBSTANCES OR MARKS
      Amendments made: No. 211, in page 21, leave out lines
      38 and 39 and insert—
      '(a) a magistrates' court, in deciding whether to grant an application for dismissal made by the accused under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application for dismissal of charge in course of proceedings with a view to transfer for trial);
      ( ) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer; and.'
      No. 212, in page 22, line 10, at end insert—
      `( ) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 36 of this Act, this section shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the grant of an application for dismissal was a reference to the committal of the accused for trial.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 32

      EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ACCOUNT FOR PRESENCE AT A PARTICULAR PLACE
      Amendments made: No. 213, in page 22, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
      '(a) a magistrates' court, in deciding whether to grant an application for dismissal made by the accused under

      291
      section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application for dismissal of charge in course of proceedings with a view to transfer for trial);
      ( ) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer, and'.
      No. 214, in page 22, line 38, at end insert—
      '( ) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 36 of this Act, this section shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the grant of an application for dismissal was a reference to the committal of the accused for trial.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 33

      INTERPRETATION AND SAVINGS FOR SECTIONS 29, 30, 31 AND 32
      Amendment made: No. 215, in page 23, line 4, leave out 'be committed' and insert
      'have the proceedings against him transferred to the Crown Court'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 43
      CIRCUIT JUDGES TO ACT AS JUDGES OF CRIMINAL DIVISION OF COURT OF APPEAL
      Amendment made: No. 341, in page 31, leave out lines 23 and 24.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 44

      EXPENSES IN CRIMINAL APPEALS IN NORTHERN IRELAND COURT OF APPEAL
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 32, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
      '(3) This section shall apply to any decision or review of the Master (Taxing Office) made after 25th July 1991.'
      I apologise to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), whom I had to jump over to reach my seat in time.
      The amendment is a small point, concerning costs in criminal appeals in Northern Ireland. I am delighted that the Government introduced what is now clause 44, because it emerged some six years ago in Northern Ireland that there was a serious gap in our legislation. There had been a provision for the assessment of costs in criminal appeals and a provision for appeals from that assessment. However, as a result of what was a legislative slip up in 1978, the right of appeal disappeared. That was not realised until 1988, in the Weir and Higgins' application. It became clear in 1988 that the right of appeal had been lost.
      The obvious thing to do was remedy the omission. I am glad that the Government have done so by introducing clause 44. When they introduced that clause in Committee, I thought that the matter was uncontroversial. At that time, I was not aware that a judicial review was proceeding through the courts in Northern Ireland to test the right to appeal. That judicial review, which was heard by Mr. Justice Kerr and is currently on appeal, was funded by the Law Society of Northern Ireland because of its desire to test the issue and to try to establish a right of appeal.
      In those circumstances, and because the mistake was not discovered until 1988, it is not unreasonable to ask for the legislation conferring the right to appeal to be made
      292
      retrospective. That is all my amendment does. I have been told that only four or five cases would be affected. I appreciate that there may be expense involved.
      In a sense, it would be better to date the retrospection back to 1988. I took advice from the solicitors involved in the case that is currently proceeding through the Northern Ireland courts and the date that is provided in the amendment relates to that. It is not a major issue; it affects only a handful of cases. However, it is a matter of providing a remedy that was lost as a result of what appears to have been a slip-up in the legislation. Now that we are remedying that slip-up, I see no reason why the amendment should not be made retrospective, so that people should not suffer a loss as a result of what was basically a mistake made in this House.
      Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 63 is intended to give retrospective effect to the provisions in clause 44, which confer new rights of appeal against assessments of criminal legal aid costs by the taxing master in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. However, it does so in a highly selective manner, which I understand is designed to meet the concerns of a firm of solicitors aggrieved by the master's assessment of the costs in a particular case.
      The Government do not accept that it is either necessary or practical to give retrospective effect to the new appeal rights conferred by clause 44. The present arrangements have been in operation for at least 15 years. It is worth remembering that, under the current system, both branches of the legal profession have the benefit of a full, expert and independent consideration of their entitlement to remuneration out of public funds.
      The House will realise that it is both unrealistic and unnecessary to suggest that the masters or the High Court should now be required to reinvestigate and review assessments carried out over many years, and we cannot see any justification for affording special and preferential treatment to the costs assessed in any particular case.
      The hon. Gentleman will know that on many occasions in Committee I welcomed his wise words, and was able to say that the Government agreed with him and would put into law his desires and his amendment. Unfortunately, this is one of the rare occasions when I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he understands.
      Mr. Trimble: I do not wish to detain the House. I have made my point, and I do not wish to divide the House on the amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 342, in page 32, leave out lines 17 and 18.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 46

      POWERS OF POLICE TO TAKE NON-INTIMATE BODY SAMPLES
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 33, line 30, at end insert—
      '(6) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(10) Subsection (3B) above shall not apply to persons convicted before the date on which that subsection comes into force.."'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 48

      RETENTION OF SAMPLES IN CERTAIN CASES
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 35, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'but' in line 22 and insert
      'taken for the purpose of the same investigation of an offence of which a person from whom one was taken has been convicted'.
      No. 39, in page 35, line 26, at end add—
      '(3B) Where samples are required to be destroyed under subsections (1), (2) or (3) above, and subsection (3A) above does not apply, information derived from the sample of any person entitled to its destruction under subsections (1), (2) or (3) above shall not be used—

      (a) in evidence against the person so entitled; or

      (b) for the purposes of any investigation of an offence.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 49
      SAMPLES:INTIMATE AND NON-INTIMATE ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 40, in page 36, leave out lines 3 and 4.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 51

      POWER TO REMOVE TRESPASSERS ON LAND.
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 255, in page 36, line 29, leave out 'are trespassing on land' and insert
      'have entered land as trespassers'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in page 36, line 30, after 'period', insert 'exceeding 48 hours'.
      No. 65, in page 36, line 34, leave out
      'or used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his.'.
      No. 256, in page 36, leave out lines 41 to 46.
      Government amendments Nos. 150, 151, 156, 157 and 152 to 155.
      Mr. Fraser: I should like to speak about amendment No. 255 to clause 51; I will leave my Scottish friends to deal with amendments Nos. 64 and 65, and the Government to deal with their own amendments, because they do not entirely hang together.
      Clause 51 is said to be directed at mass trespass, although, when the Government have cut the number down to six vehicles, I think that it should only count as a macro trespass. Clause 51 makes it a criminal offence not to leave land, having been requested to do so by a police officer, in certain circumstances, including where six or more vehicles, not people, are involved in the trespass. I suppose that that could be described as a macro trespass.
      The clause also applies to more limited circumstances. For instance, it would apply to two people alone who trespass and cause damage. For instance, they may have crushed grass or hay while camping, or they may have caused nominal damage by cutting a square of turf in order to light a fire. They would be committing a criminal offence under this clause if they were requested, and then, having entered the premises as trespassers and been asked to leave, they did not do so in a reasonable time.
      Amendment No. 255 restricts the offence to those who originally entered the land as trespassers, and does not
      294
      apply it to those who subsequently became trespassers because the original permission that they were given to enter the land had been ended or withdrawn.
      We do not want to take up too much time on this, but let me give one example of how it might work in a quite unexpected way. Let us take the example of two people who live in a caravan, with permission, on a caravan site, intending to be there for roughly the summer season. The owner of the site then imposes a condition—for example, something which is not uncommon on caravan sites, that they must buy a new caravan through the agency of the owner of the site.
      Alternatively, the owner might raise an unreasonable service charge for the site. He might then say to the two people living in the caravan that their permission to occupy the site has been terminated, notwithstanding their anticipation of being there for the entire season.
      The two people involved might, quite understandably, give the site owner a bit of "verbal", which is described as threatening, abusive or insulting language. In the circumstances, I might be tempted to do the same. Yet in those circumstances, although the people did not enter the site as trespassers, and although they had permission to be there originally, they would be caught and become criminals if they did not immediately leave the site with their caravan when requested by a police officer to do so. It could involve considerable stress, loss and inconvenience to the people involved.
      If we are to have the clause at all—I am unhappy about it anyway—it ought to be restricted to an invasive trespass and not be applied to what may subsequently become a trespass. If the House does not accept the amendment, the police will be placed in the invidious position of trying to decide when certain events creating a trespass took place. One can envisage an example such as I have given where relations had gone sour, anticipated arrangements had collapsed and the police were drawn into one side or other of the dispute.
      We know what mischief the clause is intended to attack. I do not agree with every proposal in the clause, but we know what it is aimed at: a macro trespass or a mass trespass by vehicles. It should not be directed to the ending of a previous contractual arrangement. I hope that the Minister can sensibly accept the amendment.
      Mr. Warren Hawksley: I congratulate the Government on tabling amendments Nos. 150 and 151, which deal with trespass on common land, about which I had previously been in touch with the Home Secretary, and amendments Nos. 156 and 157, which deal with trespass on rights of way. Both are necessary and desirable.
      The point that I should like to make, as one who in a previous incarnation in the House was involved with seeing section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 on to the statute book, is my concern about whether this power will be used. The previous power under section 39, which allowed officers to respond when 12 vehicles were present, has not been used by them to any great extent. I gather that the Association of Chief Police Officers has discouraged chief constables from using this power.
      8.45 pm
      I wonder whether the Minister can reassure the House that the new power, in its better and more easily used form, will be available. I have come across police officers who

      295
      have been involved in the problem in mid-Wales and in the west midlands, who have been told not to use section 39 of the 1986 Act. What are we doing to make sure that the new clause will be used by officers? I hope that the Minister can reassure us that he has an assurance from ACPO that it will do nothing to discourage the use of this section. Provided that he can do so, I whole-heartedly welcome the amendments.
      Mr. Maclean: The Opposition amendments in this grouping constitute attempts to restrict the application of clause 51, and hence its effectiveness. Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 would do so by disapplying the clause to persons who did not enter land as trespassers but who became such subsequently. Clause 51 is a restatement and a strengthening of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.
      The Government have become concerned that section 39 does not provide adequate protection for a landowner who may have invited people on to his land, but who has had his hospitality abused as the welcome is outstayed or the activities of those on his land become unbearable. The massive invasion at Newtown, Powys in the summer of 1992 is a case in point. There, I understand, the farmer was willing to allow the odd traveller on to his land, but, when the masses arrived, he did not have available the protection of section 39. Clause 51 represents a useful addition to the powers against those who cause blight in the countryside, and I cannot accept the Opposition's amendments.
      The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) gave an interesting example. I merely remind him that the powers of the police under this clause are discretionary. If the constable forms a reasonable belief, he may exercise his powers. I suspect that, in other hypothetical cases such as the one that the hon. Gentleman suggested—where there might be a dispute about whether they had a lease or a right to stay in a caravan on an official site—the police might be reluctant to use their powers.
      In each case, there must be an interpretation of the facts at the scene as the police see them. Amendment No. 64 would prevent the police from directing travellers to leave land under the terms of clause 51 unless the police believed that the travellers were going to stay for at least 48 hours. The Government cannot accept that amendment, either.
      Amendment No. 65 seeks to remove one of the triggers for the police powers to direct trespassers to leave land which are contained in clause 51. If it were carried, the fact that trespassers use threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his would no longer be grounds for the police to take action. I find it difficult to see why the amendment should have been tabled.
      New age travellers and others who trespass on land without any regard for the rights and feelings of those communities they invade are, as all sectors of the House agree, a menace.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: If the measure is directed against new age travellers—I by no means accept the rationale for that—why are not they mentioned in the Bill? Why are no categories mentioned? Does the Minister agree with the Scottish Landowners Federation, which has taken the view that "specific mischiefs" should be defined in the Bill?
      Mr. Maclean: I do not agree. The measure is not directed particularly, solely or only at new age travellers. In many parts of England—I accept that it is not a great
      296
      problem in Scotland yet—it is a problem, and new age travellers are the main offenders, although there may be others invading land.
      I do not particularly like the laundry list approach to legislation—in other words, trying to define lists or categories of people. If we try to do that, the categories will inevitably change next day, next week or next year, and the law is constantly trying to chase them up. I would not care to try to define a new age traveller.
      Mr. Wilson: Is not the opposite of the laundry list approach the catch-all approach?
      Mr. Maclean: It is not exactly the opposite, because it is circumscribed by certain powers, rights and duties. The police have a discretionary power, but it is not a power which they can exercise at will or willy-nilly. I do not agree with the Scottish Landowners Federation view that the laundry list is the best approach.
      I will not go on at length. I understand that the view of the House is perhaps to have a much more wide-ranging debate, including some Scottish elements, later. I hope that I shall be able to lay to rest some of the misconceptions which are rife in Scotland now about what may happen to the odd rambler who goes astray in the Scottish mountains. We will deal with that in another grouping.
      Mr. Hawksley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I will certainly take up the point raised by my hon. Friend.
      It is the Government's view that, whenever we bring in new legislation, it should be operated and used, and we except the legislation to be used. We have not gone through months in Committee and the past few days in the House to pass the new powers, and then have the police not use them. It is inevitable that there will be some circular or guidance before the legislation or its various parts comes into effect. We would expect it to be used in appropriate circumstances.
      We expect the present powers in the Public Order Act 1986 to be used. We will not want any excuses from any quarter about why the existing powers should not be used.
      Finally, I will merely mention Government amendments Nos. 150 to 155, which seek to clarify the police powers to remove trespassers from private and common land. I was asked in Committee to do something about common land—we have done so. Government amendments Nos. 156 and 157 are technical, and seek to clarify what types of highway are covered by clauses relating to trespass and aggravated trespass and what are not. I was also pressed on that matter in Committee, and there is a clarifying amendment which I hope the House will find useful.
      With those concluding remarks, I commend the Government amendments—although, unfortunately, I will not commend the Opposition amendments to the House on this occasion.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 150, in page 37, leave out lines 22 to 26 and insert—
      '(7) In its application in England and Wales to common land this section has effect as if in the preceding subsections of it—

      (a) references to trespassing or trespassers were references to acts and persons doing acts which constitute either a trespass as against the occupier or an infringement of the commoners' rights; and

      297

      (b) references to "the occupier" included the commoners or any of them or, in the case of common land to which the public has access, the local authority as well as any commoner.

      (7A) Subsection (7) above does not—

      (a) require action by more than one occupier; or

      (b) constitute persons trespassers as against any commoner or the local authority if they are permitted to be there by the other occupier.'.

      No. 151, in page 37, line 27, at end insert—
      '"common land" means common land as defined in section 22 of the Commons Registration Act 1965;
      "commoner" means a person with rights of common as defined in section 22 of the Commons Registration Act 1965;'.
      No. 156, in page 37, line 38, after 'of where it appears for the first time insert '—
      (i)".'.
      No. 157, in page 37, line 38, leave out from 'highway' to end of line 41 and insert—
      'unless it falls within the classifications in section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic or road used as a public path) or is a cycle track under the Highways Act 1980 or the Cycle Tracks Act 1984; or
      (ii) a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 unless it falls within the definitions in section 151(2)(a)(ii) or (b) (footpaths and cycle tracks) of that Act or is a bridleway within the meaning of section 47 of the Countryside Scotland Act 1967;'.
      No. 152, in page 37, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert—
      "'the local authority", in relation to common land, means any local authority which has powers in relation to the land under section 9 of the Commons Registration Act 1965;'.
      No. 153, in page 37, line 46, after "'occupier"', insert
      '(and in subsection (7A) "the other occupier").'
      No. 154, in page 38, leave out lines 11 to 13.
      No. 155, in page 38, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert—
      '"trespass" means in the application of this section—

      (a) in England and Wales, subject to the extensions effected by subsection (6) above, trespass as against the occupier of the land;

      (b) in Scotland, entering, or as the case may be remaining on, land without lawful authority and without the occupier's consent; and

      "trespassing" and "trespasser" shall be construed accordingly;'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 52

      SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS OF SEIZURE
      Amendments made: No. 158, in page 38, line 33, after 'has', insert ',without reasonable excuse'.
      No. 159, in page 38, line 34, at beginning insert '(a)'. No. 160, in page 38, line 34, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'.
      No. 161, in page 38, line 36, leave out from 'control' to end of line and insert '; or
      (b) entered the land as a trespasser with a vehicle within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,
      the constable may seize and remove that vehicle.'.
      No. 378, in page 38, line 37, leave out "vehicle" has' and insert "trespasser" and "vehicle" have'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 54

      SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS OF ENTRY AND SEIZURE
      Amendments made: No. 167, in page 40, line 26, after 'has', insert', without reasonable excuse'.
      No. 168, in page 40, line 27, at beginning insert '(a)'. No. 169, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'.
      No. 170, in page 40, line 29, leave out from 'control' to end of line 30 and insert '; or
      (b) entered the land as a trespasser with a vehicle or sound equipment within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the direction was given,
      the constable may seize and remove that vehicle or sound equipment.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 58

      OFFENCE OF AGGRAVATED TRESPASS
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No.6, in page 43, line 7 after 'he', insert 'intentionally'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 43, line 9, after second 'are' insert 'immediately'.
      No. 8, in page 43, line 9, leave out 'or adjoining'.
      No. 9, in page 43, line 10, leave out 'anything' and insert 'any unlawful activity'.
      No. 47, in page 43, line 10, leave out 'is intended by him to have' and insert 'has'.
      No. 12, in page 43, line 11, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 15 and insert
      'and which does have the effect—

      (a) by the use of violence or threats of violence of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

      (b) of unlawfully, in addition to the unlawfulness of the act or acts of the defendant due to the trespass, obstructing or disrupting that activity.'.

      No. 48, in page 43, line 21, leave out from 'to' to end of line 22 and insert
      'a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.
      No. 171, in page 43, line 26, leave out from 'section' to end of line 29 and insert "'land" does not include—

      (a) the highways and roads excluded from the application of section 51 by paragraph (b) of the definition of "land" in subsection (8) of that section; or

      (b) a road within the meaning of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.'.

      No. 10, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert 'public footpaths or bridleways or'.
      No. 19, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert
      'either land 1000 feet above sea level or'.
      No. 20, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert
      'land which has been hunted over with hounds at any time during the ten years before this Act received Royal Assent or'.
      No. 23, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert
      'land subject to an access agreement (except on a day when the access agreement provides for restriction of access to the land) or'.
      No. 21, in page 43, line 27, leave out from 'highway' to 'which' in line 28.
      No. 11, in clause 59, page 44, line 1, leave out from 'trespasser' to end of line 3 and insert
      'whilst the lawful activity is taking place'.
      No. 172, in page 44, line 2, leave out '7 days' and insert 'three months'.
      No. 173, in page 44, line 16, leave out 'in the open air'
      No. 174, in clause 60, page 46, line 5, after 'highway', insert 'or road'.
      Mr. Michael: It must be obvious to everybody from the number of amendments that have been dealt with either formally or through discussion just what a considerable task the House has in dealing with this legislation. We are coming now to the subject of aggravated trespass, which, with the general subject of trespass, has raised immense concern.
      I do not think that the way in which the House has had to deal with the issues and the Bill does great credit to the procedures of the House, or to democracy in this country. The Minister said that he did not like the laundry list approach to legislation. Frankly, we are getting from the Government the dirty washing approach—or, as it has been described, the rag-bag approach—to legislation.
      They take a few extracts from a speech and throw them together, draft something without proper consultation or discussion, and throw that together in a Bill in a vain attempt to rescue the reputation of a Government and a Home Secretary who have totally failed to deal with the real issues of crime in our society.
      The problem with the clause, and with this section of the Bill, is that it endangers the rights of people to enjoy the countryside and enjoy access. The amendments that we have tabled to clause 58 are designed to ensure that its scope is limited to acts of violence such as those perpetrated against hunts, which, the Government have said, it is designed to counter.
      Some of the new clauses and amendments on this issue have not been selected. We have tried in clear terms to stress the importance of ensuring the freedom of access, as well as the rights to peaceful protest. The right to access exercises many people throughout the country. We want to tighten up the wording of the clause to ensure that walkers and ramblers are not penalised by the clauses, and to ensure that legitimate non-violent protest is not affected.
      Many of us would have to declare interest in that matter. People involved in politics have, in a responsible and peaceful way, protested about some of the actions taken by authorities or by private organisations.
      Many of us are also walkers or ramblers. I myself would like to find more time for walking in the countryside, but it is one of the recreations that I enjoy most. The problem is that the amendments are necessary because of the sloppy wording of clause 58. The clause refers to lawful activity which people are engaging in, and those committing the offence do so by deterring, obstructing or disrupting them. That is wording so broad that it could cover a farmer who was ploughing his field and closing a right of way. If ramblers were to protest at or obstruct this activity, they would be guilty of an offence.
      More generally, walkers could fall foul of the proposals by walking across a shooting moor. It may not be their intention to disrupt the activity, as the clause requires, but a farmer or landowner may believe that that is the case and call in the police. It is rather too late to wait for a court case to settle the matter about intention. We all know that walkers will have experienced some intimidation and people have been prevented from enjoying the countryside. That issue greatly concerns the Ramblers Association. Our amendments would protect the rights of ramblers and walkers.
      Government amendment No. 171, taken in conjunction with amendment No. 157 to clause 51, will worsen the situation and appears to mean that the clause will apply to
      300
      footpaths, which is a move in the opposite direction to our amendments, which also deal with protections for the right to legitimate peaceful protest.
      9 pm
      Legitimate peaceful demonstrations can obstruct or disrupt an activity against which the person or people are protesting—for example, shoppers protesting on land belonging to a shop and people protesting about the environmental consequences of major new public works. I hope that the Government do not intend to catch such legitimate demonstrators, but the phrasing is so wide that they might be caught.
      Our proposals tighten up the wording to ensure that the clause hits the true target—the violent and dangerous, according to the Government—but do not inadvertently draw into its net many people who are legitimately going about their business.
      There have been considerable objections and protests about those elements of the Bill that apply to Scotland. I know that Scottish colleagues will wish to make their point later and it is one which I endorse and support.
      There are genuine legal grounds for fearing that the clauses will restrict freedom to walk and climb in many upland areas. The Ramblers Association, the British Mountaineering Council, which has written to me, and representatives of canoeists, who can envisage how their sport might be affected by the passage of the Bill, have obtained legal advice. All those organisations want our amendments as a minimum protection. That legal advice has been made available to the public and the Government should not disregard it.
      Such a brief debate on the issue is regrettable, but we will demonstrate through our votes in the Lobby our objection to what the Government are doing and our wish to protect climbers, walkers and people who enjoy the countryside so that their enjoyment can continue unrestricted.
      Mr. Roger Gale: I wish to speak to my amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which are grouped with amendment No. 6.
      When I spoke in the House last night I said that I intended to force my amendments to a Division tonight. It is only right that I place on record the fact that neither has been chosen by Madam Speaker, who has it in her gift to decide what amendments we vote upon, and I cannot therefore force the Divisions that I should have liked. I am in no way challenging Madam Speaker's judgment. I understand that she felt that since we voted on that matter last night no further vote would be appropriate.
      I know that hon. Members will understand that the fact that I cannot force a Division will in no way weaken the force of what I have to say or the sincerity with which I say it. I do not wish to subject the House to a re-run of our lengthy debate on the subject last night. However, I must reinforce certain points and I do so having had the chance to study last night's debate—a curious opportunity, as it is not often that one has the chance to debate the same subject two nights running.
      Setting aside my rather ill-tempered contribution to that debate, certain facts emerge. First, it is clear that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State believe that clauses 57 and 58 are even handed, as they have always claimed, and I do not doubt the sincerity with which they claim and

      301
      believe that. Secondly, it is equally clear that not one reputable animal welfare organisation believes that the clauses are even handed.
      From our discussions last night, it is also clear that some legal opinion disagrees with the Home Secretary. I was asked to reveal the source of the counsel's opinion that I quoted last night and I felt that it was improper to do so because I did not have the permission of the QC involved. I now have that permission—the opinion was prepared by Louis Blom-Cooper, who I understand is happy to have his name placed on the record in connection with amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which I tabled and he drafted.
      I also benefited from the legal opinion of Alan Newman QC, who prepared an opinion dealing with clauses 57 and 58. I do not think that I am misrepresenting Mr. Newman by saying that he regards those clauses as shot full of inaccuracies and probably in breach of the European convention on human rights. Once I have obtained his permission, I intend to submit his opinion to the Home Secretary and I shall look forward to receiving his comments on it before the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
      I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is not in his place tonight. He told me last night that, as a Queen's counsel, he disagreed with the legal opinion that I had been offered. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a huntsman and I am not entirely surprised that he disagrees with that opinion—I in turn disagree with his disagreement.
      I am afraid that I must introduce a slight note of rancour concerning the events of last night and the manner in which the Liberal Democratic party, at least one representative of which, I am glad to say, is present and may wish to respond, has presented its view on hunting. The last time that
      Most telling of all from a reading of the report of last night's debate are the illustrations of the very real problems caused by hunt invasion and trespass and the many cases of real human distress and tragedy that the hunt has caused and, so far as I can see from the legislation that is before us, will continue to cause. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) indicate that there appeared to be no statistics relating to the prosecution of hunts for their trespass on other people's lands. The public may find it a little odd that the Home Secretary can—quite properly, in my view—listen to hon. Members and fine tune, for example, matters relating to video nasties or legislation concerning unlicensed taxi drivers, but is quite prepared to fly in the face of public opinion and introduce a piece of legislation which, as is indicated by the legal opinion that we have heard indicates, will restrain those who wish to protest against the hunt.
      As I have already said, I wholly endorse the Home Secretary's desire to contain the unlawful activities of violent protestors. However, it is not good enough to do so without giving the ordinary householder, cottage owner,
      302
      smallholder or small farmer the right to decide whom he or she wants to have on his or her land. That principle should be clearly embraced in the legislation.
      I want the Minister, when he replies, to put something firmly on the record. On the basis of what he has said to me, I hope and believe that he will be willing to do so. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in the case of Pepper v. Hart the principle was established that ministerial comment recorded in Hansard may be quoted in court and used as part of the substance of a case. I hope that the Minister will say very clearly that precisely the same attributes should apply to the hunt and to the landowners and that if a landowner has clearly indicated in writing to the master of hounds that he does not want the hunt on his land, disregard of that indication would be presumed to be aggravation of trespass.
      Another matter that emerged from last night's debate saddens me. In this connection, I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) has come into the Chamber. No hon. Member who spoke last night in defence of the hunt expressed any remorse or apology whatsoever for the manner in which hunts around the country have treated other people's property, land and rights. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take an opportunity tonight to place his concerns—
      the House divided on the question of hunting in general the Liberal Democrats voted two to one in favour of the activity. Last night, six of them voted in favour, two voted against, and the rest abstained. I place that on the record because it is very often claimed by members of the Liberal Democratic party that they are the champions of animal welfare and are anti-hunt. Once again, it seems that their parliamentary representatives do not square with the voice in the constituency, particularly in the west country. I shall be interested to see how those hon. Members vote on the issue in future. It was my hope that they would have an opportunity tonight. That, sadly, has been denied.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gale: Yes.
      Sir Nicholas BonsorI am very glad that my hon. Friend has done me the courtesy of giving way. His refusal last night to do so was the reason for my having to speak. I am prepared to say that no one in the hunting community, the British Field Sports Society or the House condones the behaviour of those who treat other people's property and pets in an unacceptable way. In hunting, as in everything else, such things occasionally occur. However, my hon. Friend tries to turn the odd exception into the rule and, in so doing, he misleads the House and deliberately undermines the freedoms that people enjoy to carry out their legitimate pursuits.
      Mr. Gale: I thought that we were making some progress, but that was a mealy-mouthed intervention. It is not a question of one or two cases. Everyone who has studied the matter in detail knows that more than 200 cases have been recorded and more occur each hunting season. [Interruption.] I should have liked to have heard my hon. Friend, who is good at contributing from a sedentary position—I wish that he would stand up and make his own speech—say unequivocally on behalf of the British Field Sports Society that it is his policy not to trespass on land under any circumstances when he is told that he is not wanted. He should not simply say that but should abide by it. Had he done that, much of the debate tonight could have been avoided. It is largely because of the attitude of those who hunt that this part of the debate is necessary.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) did not use the opportunity to condemn the violence of hunt supporters against those who demonstrate against the hunt? He tried to justify it in last night's debate. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, far from there being just the odd incident, Nick Fawcett, Master of the Surrey Union Foxhounds said:

      303
      "I don't think I've seen a meet this year where we've not gone through someone's back garden."?
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster will take the opportunity of this short debate to clarify his position. The House will welcome it if he does so.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State has said clearly and unequivocally that he does not intend to make trespass a criminal offence, so the landowner is simply left with the existing position—the civil law.
      Another opinion on trespass says:
      "If you are able to identify the trespassers, you could take legal action through the civil court for simple trespass, but the deterrent effect and damages awarded are likely to be negligible and not cost effective. A court injunction to prevent further trespass would be far more effective; but these are hard—and expensive —to obtain, requiring identification of individuals … and evidence that they are likely to trespass on your land."
      That is not an opinion prepared for the League Against Cruel Sports or the Anti-Hunt Council. It was prepared in a paper entitled "Disruption of Angling", which is a British Field Sports Society brief for angling clubs. In that document, the society kicks the bottom out of the existing law and makes it abundantly plain that, to all intents and purposes, once the Bill is on the statute book, there will be one law for the hunt and another for those who do not want the hunt on their land. That is undesirable and I hope that another place will return to it and table amendments on it.
      Were my amendments carried, they would at least have
      had the effect of making the Bill genuinely even handed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will at least make his intention for future quoting in court cases abundantly clear.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made some remarks about my hon. Friends. It follows the tradition of the House on matters such as hunting that votes are cast on an individual basis rather than on a party line. His attempt to turn the matter into a party issue in referring to the attitude of Liberal Democrats was peculiar and inapposite in the light of the division within his own ranks on the subject.
      9.15 pm
      The hon. Gentleman has no right to assume that those who voted against the amendment that he presented as being about hunting did so because they support hunting. Some of us considered that it was a dog's breakfast of an amendment and did not deserve to be incorporated into the law. The only way to deal with the hunting issue is to have a straight vote on it—either one is for it or against it. Despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt, from a sedentary position—he took exception to that in the case of his hon. Friend—to misrepresent the position, the choice was not put before the House last night. The aim of my hon. and right hon. Friends in approaching these matters—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank the hon. Gentleman. In last night's vote, two of the hon. Gentlemen's colleagues from his own party voted in favour of the amendment, a number voted against it, several abstained from the vote and a number were not present for the vote. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that proves once again that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all constituencies?
      Mr. MacLennan: We took the view that, because of the nature of the amendment, it was reasonable that there be a free vote on it and different people took different views on the issue. That is not the position in respect of the matters that we are discussing at the moment.
      In turning to the main purpose of this group of amendments—there are a rather large number of amendments grouped together—I make it clear that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I support measures that are likely to secure public order in an even-handed manner, but which do not at the same time criminalise peaceful protestors or innocent parties such as hill walkers or ramblers. Several of our amendments designed to achieve these aims have unfortunately not been selected, but a number of other amendments deal with cognate issues.
      I say in passing that that intention was supported by the Scottish Landowners Federation in a letter to me. The federation said that it accepted that it would be desirable to exclude, specifically, bone fide walkers and climbers from the scope of clause 58, although it took the view that they were not at risk as the clause was presently drafted. However, the federation would welcome the inclusion of the amendment for the avoidance of doubt.
      Amendment No. 6—the lead amendment in the group —is one which I support. I believe that trespass must be intentional and that the amendment would assist in protecting walkers. However, if landowners erect signs warning against trespass—which I am afraid is probably likely to happen—the amendment will not be very
      practicable.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the possibility of signs being erected warning people about the issues of access, could he clarify whether he believes that this should be a transfer from civil law to criminal law? Certainly, within the context of this legislation we are moving from breach of the peace—which is the Scottish legislative process—to a criminal situation. I would very much welcome his views on that point.
      Mr. Maclennan: I think that the Law Society of Scotland has dealt with that issue very well and I strongly support its view. I believe that there will be an opportunity later to consider the Scottish position separately.
      Amendment No. 8 provides that the offence cannot be committed on land adjoining the site of illegal activity, only on the land itself. I think that the amendment is designed to protect peaceful protest, which I support. Similarly, I support amendment No. 9, which provides that the offence can be committed only by carrying out an unlawful activity rather than any activity. That would also help to protect peaceful protests.
      The Government's intentions are acceptable in that the present law is inadequate to deal with the sort of invasions that have taken place. I think that the Minister of State referred to one such invasion in Powys, in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Those are real problems and we need a response to them.
      The problems raise difficult issues of balance. Throughout the debate, we have tried to achieve balance through the amendments that we have tabled. We are concerned about ramblers and hill walkers. I hope that the

      305
      Minister will have something to say about that. If he does not succeed in satisfying the House, I have no doubt that the matter will be raised again in another place.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the proposals of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). However, I want not to talk about them, but to spend a few minutes supporting amendment No. 6. I wish to emphasise the concerns of the Ramblers Association, the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, the British Mountaineering Council and a large number of walkers and ramblers.
      It is ironic that, when we have high levels of crime, the Government appear to want to make criminals of people who have gone about their business perfectly peacefully in the past and, I am sure, will continue to do so in future. It would be far better if the Government concentrated their efforts on those people who have been committing crimes rather than on trying to increase the categories of crime. Nothing that I have heard has suggested that, in trying to deal with the problem of hunt saboteurs, the Government have not dragged another group of people into the scope of the legislation.
      I am concerned about mountain safety. I hope that the Minister can explain how he can guarantee that if people are on mountains, they will not be caught by the legislation if they choose to come down in the safest way because of a substantial change in the weather and their circumstances.
      Something has begun to happen fairly frequently in the Peak district, particularly where there are substantial grouse moors. In the past, where access agreements to the moors were granted, walkers knew that for all but three or four named days in the year, they were perfectly free to roam over the mountain areas. On those named days, they knew that shooting would take place and they arranged their walks to avoid them. Sadly, as a result of some of the saboteurs' activities that have occasionally occurred on grouse moors, instead of the days of closure being announced well in advance, they are often posted the day before or on the day itself.
      Therefore, it is possible to plan a walk of perhaps 20 or 30 miles across the moors with a group of people and, as one approaches the end of the walk, suddenly to come across a section that is supposed to be closed because a shoot is being held that day. It would be far better for adequate notice to be given so that people can plan alternative routes. I very much regret that adequate notice is no longer being given.
      In those circumstances, a return or other journey to avoid descending on to the grouse moors may be extremely difficult and, if the weather deteriorates, positively dangerous. It is perfectly reasonable for a person using such a route to make his descent abundantly clear by making a noise, to ensure that he is not at any risk from the people shooting on the moors. That is just common sense. In effect, however, that person is likely to disrupt that activity.
      Mr. Maclean: In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described, would the walker have the deliberate intention of disrupting the activity?
      Mr. Bennett: To ensure that no one was shooting, the walker would have deliberately to curtail the activity, to protect his own safety. Perhaps the Minister can give an
      306
      assurance to the contrary. I would have thought that he would have studied the amendments and included such a safeguard in the Bill.
      I shall leave my Scottish colleagues to explain the situation in Scotland, but I imagine that a similar situation applies there, particularly where deer stalking takes place. The safety problems are much more substantial than in the Pennines, because distances are often much greater and the weather deteriorates more quickly. The Minister must address the problem, so that walkers do not have to choose between endangering their safety and becoming criminals.
      In recent years, the Ramblers Association has legitimately campaigned for greater access to upland areas, mountains and moorlands. Each autumn, it has staged a mass trespass day, when organised groups peacefully walk along routes that ought to be open to the general public. The association has done a good job of drawing attention to such routes and of persuading many national parks and local authorities to reach agreement with landowners about providing public access.
      Under the Bill, such mass trespass days would be difficult to organise. As soon as a group announced a peaceful demonstration that would cause no damage to a piece of land, the landowner could organise an activity that would make it impossible for the walkers to cross the land without disrupting that activity, in which case they would be caught by the new legislation. The Minister ought to make it clear that it is not his intention that the clause will be used to stop peaceful demonstrations.
      I tabled a series of amendments that would enable the Minister to rule out many parts of the country where there is no problem with hunting by introducing a height limit that would exclude parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister frowns, but it would be perfectly reasonable to exclude any area above 1,000 ft. There is little justification for applying the clause to Wales, and there will be a debate later on not applying it to Scotland.
      The Minister ought to remember that large numbers of people enjoy walking on our hills, and a smaller number enjoy rock climbing. Almost all pursue their activities peacefully and in a way that harms no one else. It is sad that the Government want to turn peaceful enjoyment of the mountains into a criminal activity.
      Mr. Trimble: In Committee, I tabled an amendment to emphasise that we were anxious that what is now clause 58 should apply to Northern Ireland. The Minister stated that consideration would be given to that request, and I acknowledge that Government amendments Nos. 171 and 80 will have the welcome effect of extending clause 58 to Northern Ireland. I particularly welcome the fact that it has been done through the Bill rather than leaving us to wait for an Order in Council, which might take ages.
      Mr. Maclean: That confirms the view that I was developing in Committee—that I was being far too generous to the hon. Gentleman and extending too many concessions to him and his hon. Friends from Northern Ireland.
      Before I deal with a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I shall deal with the main concern of some Opposition Members which lies behind the group of amendments that they have tabled. I do not know how this illegal hare got running, but I cannot imagine the circumstances in which the powers in clause 58 could be used against bona fide hill walkers—

      307
      even fake hill walkers for that matter—ramblers, climbers or a person doing Munro bagging, especially when his ankle recovers. All those people are not likely to be caught by the clause.
      I used to have discussions with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is a member of the Ramblers Association, when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment. I have just written to Mr. Mattingly, trying to explain, in no uncertain terms, that I could not imagine ramblers being caught by the new clause. What would ramblers, walkers or anyone else have to do before they would fall foul of the clause?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Morley rose—
      Mr. Maclean: No. I wish to conclude.
      This is what they would have to do. First, they would have to trespass. Secondly, they would have to intend to disrupt or obstruct a lawful activity. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made the case about walkers being caught in a whiteout, or coming down the side of the mountain and then being forced to walk through some lawful activity to save their lives or protect themselves from the weather. Although that may have caused disruption and intervened in a lawful activity, unless they had the deliberate intention of disrupting that activity, they would not be caught by the amendment.
      Mrs. Ewing: Surely the issue at stake is who defines what is a deliberate intention. Would the Minister care to define that and write it into the Bill?
      Mr. Maclean: First, it will be the constable on the scene who will decide whether he should form the reasonable belief that people may have done that. Then, of course, it is up to the court.
      Mrs. Ewing: Does that mean that the Minister will argue that, on 12 August, during grouse shooting, constables will be appropriated from the local police force to be constantly in attendance? If so, will he put the resources into that?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady misunderstands the point. The amendment does not give landowners or lairds some private right to demand a police presence on all their land. It is entirely up to chief constables how they deploy their resources. It does not happen in England at the moment, even in areas where there is disruption. No landowner has the right to say, "I want a team of policemen guarding my shoot, my ploughing match or fishing match." It is entirely up to the chief constables to decide whether there are sufficient grounds or sufficient public—[Interruption.] We want to make progress tonight. If the Opposition want to shout me down, I am happy to resume my seat right now —[Interruption.] In that case, I am happy to draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that I can see no prospect of this law being used against legitimate walkers, climbers or any others who are carrying out a lawful activity.
      Mr. Morley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Maclean: No.
      308
      It can be used only against people, whether they are doctors, ministers of religion, politicians or whatever, if they deliberately intend to disrupt or obstruct a lawful activity and are trespassing to do so.
      Finally, I wish to deal with the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North in amendment No. 47. I know that he feels strongly about the Government's proposals on aggravated trespass, but I fear that I do not think that his amendment would be an improvement. If carried, aggravated trespass would catch only those who succeeded in obstructing or disrupting a lawful activity, or who succeeded in intimidating persons so as to deter them from taking part in one. Those who tried to disrupt and, for whatever reason, failed would be immune from prosecution. That cannot be right.
      We discussed this last night so I shall mention only briefly the fact that the amendment would also remove the need for a mens rea. It would catch all obstruction or disruption of lawful activities by trespassers, whether or not they intended to cause such obstruction or disruption. That would widen the offence considerably. A rambler who happened to stray on to private land and, for example, disrupted farming activity quite accidentally or unintentionally, would be guilty of aggravated trespass if we went along with my hon. Friend's suggestion. That cannot be the right solution either.
      I have thought carefully about what my hon. Friend has said and about the discussions that we have had in private. I regret to tell him that I cannot find an alternative way to deal with the mischief that exists and which was
      acknowledged by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
      Mr. Gale: I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to put on record a very specific undertaking. Does he believe that the legislation will apply even handedly to the hunt and the landowner? If so, if notice has been given to a hunt by a landowner that he does not want the hunt on his land, will it be regarded as aggravated trespass if the hunt crosses his land?
      Mr. Maclean: I am absolutely convinced that the law is even handed. Anyone who invades someone else's land, intending to cause disruption, will fall foul of the law. I condemn anyone who causes such disruption and I condemn hunts or people who deliberately set out to do so —they deserve to receive the full weight of the law. It would be deplorable if anyone behaved in that way at the moment, but it will be even more so in future, and he will then be caught by the law. The point of interest for my hon. Friend is that it would be up to the courts to decide proof of intention after a notice had been served to the effect that a landowner did not want someone on his land. I cannot give a guarantee—[Interruption.] Pepper v. Hart relates only to interpretation of the law where it is ambiguous. The legislation is not ambiguous—it is clear and even handed to all involved. We do not need to build into it exemptions for any category of people because every person is exempt if he obeys the law and every person will be caught if he intends to cause disruption.
      Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again.
      The Minister clearly does not understand what he is doing in bringing this bad law before the House. He is defending badly drafted and impractical law which will be unfair to walkers and others who use the countryside. I

      309
      invite my hon. Friends and any Conservatives who care about such issues to vote for amendment No. 9 in order to express our distaste for the Government's rejection of the pleas that have been made in our debate.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 43, line 10, leave out 'anything' and insert 'any unlawful activity'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 290.

      Division No. 204]

      [9.37 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dowd, Jim

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Ainger, Nick

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Enright, Derek

      Allen, Graham

      Etherington, Bill

      Alton, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Ashton, Joe

      Faulds, Andrew

      Austin-Walker, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnes, Harry

      Fisher, Mark

      Barron, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul

      Bayley, Hugh

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bell, Stuart

      Fraser, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Benton, Joe

      Galloway, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gapes, Mike

      Berry, Roger

      Garrett, John

      Betts, Clive

      George, Bruce

      Blair, Tony

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Boateng, Paul

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bradley, Keith

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gordon, Mildred

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Graham, Thomas

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

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Burden, Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      Byers, Stephen

      Gunnell, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Hain, Peter

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Heppell, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoey, Kate

      Clapham, Michael

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hoyle, Doug

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hutton, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cox, Tom

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Alan

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Denham, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dixon, Don

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dobson, Frank

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      310

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Radice, Giles

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Randall, Stuart

      Lewis, Terry

      Raynsford, Nick

      Livingstone, Ken

      Reid, Dr John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rendel, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McAllion, John

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rogers, Allan

      McCartney, Ian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McFall, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      McKelvey, William

      Ruddock, Joan

      McLeish, Henry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McWilliam, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Madden, Max

      Short, Clare

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Simpson, Alan

      Mahon, Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mandelson, Peter

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Soley, Clive

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Martlew, Eric

      Speller, John

      Maxton, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Meacher, Michael

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Meale, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, Alun

      Stevenson, George

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Stott, Roger

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Milburn, Alan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Miller, Andrew

      Turner, Dennis

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Tyler, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Vaz, Keith

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wallace, James

      Morley, Elliot

      Walley, Joan

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mudie, George

      Watson, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Welsh, Andrew

      Murphy, Paul

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Olner, William

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Audrey

      Patchett, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Wray, Jimmy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pike, Peter L.

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mr. Neil Gerrard.

      Purchase, Ken

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Beggs, Roy

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Amess, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Booth, Hartley

      Ashby, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Baldry, Tony

      Brazier, Julian

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Bright, Graham

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      311

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heald, Oliver

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cash, William

      Hendry, Charles

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hicks, Robert

      Churchill, Mr

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clappison, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Colvin, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Congdon, David

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

      Conway, Derek

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Gran, James

      Jack, Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      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

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Maclean, David

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Madel, Sir David

      Gallie, Phil

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      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

      Mates, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Gorst, John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hague, William

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hannam, Sir John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      312

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stephen, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Streeter, Gary

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Sumberg, David

      Norris, Steve

      Sweeney, Walter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Sykes, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Page, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paice, James

      Thomason, Roy

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Pawsey, James

      Thurnham, Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

      Pickles, Eric

      Tracey, Richard

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Trend, Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Trimble, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trotter, Neville

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Richards, Rod

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Riddick, Graham

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Walden, George

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Waller, Gary

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Wells, Bowen

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shersby, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Sims, Roger

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Wilshire, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      Spring, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sproat, Iain

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Tellers for the Noes

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 171, in page 43, line 26, leave out from 'section' to end of line 29 and insert
      "'land" does not include—

      (a) the highways and roads excluded from the application of section 51 by paragraph (b) of the definition of "land" in subsection (8) of that section; or

      (b) a road within the meaning of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 59

      POWERS TO REMOVE PERSONS COMMITTING OR PARTICIPATING IN AGGRAVATED TRESPASS
      Amendments made: No. 172, in page 44, line 2, leave out '7 days' and insert 'three months'.
      No. 173, in page 44, line 16, leave out 'in the open air'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 60
      TRESPASSORY ASSEMBLIES
      Amendment made: No. 174, in page 46, line 5, after 'highway', insert 'or road'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 66

      INTERIM POSSESSION ORDERS: FAILURE TO COMPLY AN OFFENCE
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 52, line 13, after 'hours', insert
      `in non-residential premises, or seven working days in residential premises,'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 67, in page 52, line 18, at end insert—
      '2(A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2) it shall be a defence for him to prove that at the time the interim possession order was served on him he had reasonable grounds for believing that he was entitled to remain in occupation of the premises.'.
      Mr. Maclennan: Amendment No. 33 is not designed in any way to undermine the purpose of the Government's intentions in dealing with squatters. As the law stands, it allows an unacceptable process of delay to take place which can prevent the true owners of a residence from recovering the occupancy of their premises. The Government were entirely right to introduce this clause, but the proposal that it should be possible to evict squatters within 24 hours of the serving of a writ is too summary and too likely to wreak injustice. A period of seven days would be more reasonable.
      May I point out, as I think that I did at an earlier stage, that the circumstances in which it is discovered that people are squatting are not in any sense uniform. I know of one occasion when a tenant of a property was served with a notice to quit by a bank, which was the true owner of the property. The tenant held a wholly invalid lease from a third party who had been dispossessed by the bank and he had no knowledge of the fact that he was a squatter. In such circumstances, although he is technically and clearly a squatter, it would be reasonable to allow a certain amount a time to elapse to put one's house in order. I hope that the Minister will not view the amendment as undermining the purposes of the clause, but rather as fortifying its equity.
      Mr. Trimble: I shall follow briefly what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said and especially develop the example that he used. It is quite appropriate to remember that in such circumstances we may be dealing not only with the property owner and a squatter, but with third parties who have behaved dishonestly. There may be circumstances in which persons are squatting in a property, yet none the less believe that they are entitled to be there because of the fraud of some other person. Amendment No. 67 is designed to deal with that situation. It is not intended in any way to disrupt the operation of the legislation and I agree that there should be more effective remedies to enable the property owner to regain possession.
      May I simply ask the Minister this: if a person has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled to remain in possession of a property, how can it be just to convict him of an offence and make him a criminal, if he has reasonable grounds? The amendment would operate only when someone has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled to remain in possession of the property. The term "reasonable" obviously imports subjective criteria, which may be examined by the courts if the circumstances arise. As a result of the fraud of some other
      314
      party, how can it be right to make the person occupying a property, who believes that he is entitled to be there, a criminal?
      Mr. Maclean: I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the new interim possession procedure should not operate unjustly. I share his concern, which is why clause 65 makes it an offence to seek an interim possession order under false pretences. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the two amendments.
      The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would extend the period of grace allowed to squatters in residential premises after they have been served with an interim possession order from 24 hours to seven days. That is too long. The minimum delay between serving a summons on squatters and a court hearing under the existing procedure is only five days. The whole point of the new procedure is that it should be quicker than the existing one, which has been found to be unacceptably slow and is open to tactical delays by squatters.
      My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is proposing a delay of 24 hours between ordering squatters to leave and seeking an interim possession order, so, effectively, squatters will have 48 hours to seek legitimate accommodation. I do not think that we would be justified in prolonging that period at the expense of the lawful owners and occupiers of property. Under the Lord Chancellor's proposals, the new procedure will be available for only 28 days after the presence of the squatters is discovered. The scenario outlined by the hon. Member for Upper Bann will therefore be covered.
      I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but his defence is unacceptable and would seriously undermine the new procedure by opening up a substantial loophole for squatters. All squatters could routinely claim that they believed that they were lawful tenants and entitled to disregard the interim possession order. The police would then have to decide whether to act against them and would probably decide not to do so in most cases.
      If a case came before the magistrates, they would similarly have to assess a claim not that the alleged squatters were in fact entitled to remain but that they had reasonable grounds for believing that they were. Squatters would produce false leases or allege that they had been given the keys and were licensees, as they do at present. All the advantages that the new procedure is intended to bring would be lost and aggrieved owners would probably find the new procedure even less effective than the existing civil remedy.
      Under our proposals, all that the police will have to decide is whether a civil court's order has been obeyed —questions about the merits of the civil case are nothing to do with them. Similarly, if a case goes before the magistrates, the only question will be whether the interim possession order was complied with within 24 hours as required. One of the main reasons why the Government did not wish simply to criminalise squatting per se was to avoid entangling the police and magistrates in complicated questions about the civil law of trespass, with which they are not equipped to deal.
      It is also undesirable in principle to create a statutory right to disobey a court order. If people believe that they are not squatters, they will have a right under the new

      315
      procedure to a full hearing of the case after they have obeyed the interim order. People who are served with a court order to leave premises within 24 hours cannot reasonably believe that they are entitled to disregard it. For those reasons, I must reject the amendments from the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland and for Upper Bann.
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 67

      POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DIRECT UNAUTHORISED CAMPERS TO LEAVE LAND
      Sir David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in page 52, line 42, at end insert—
      'and that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property, or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family, or an employee or agent of his; or that the site is visible to large numbers of persons; or that persons resorting to the site have deposited any substance capable of polluting the land or the environment outside their caravan or similar living accommodation'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, we may discuss the following amendments: No. 135, in page 53, line 47, at end insert
      'provided that it is satisfied that there is somewhere else in the locality for them to go either temporarily or permanently'.
      No. 272, in page 55, line 34, leave out from 'sites)' to the end of line 37 and insert
      'will be repealed after the period of 5 years after this Act has received Royal Assent.'.
      Sir David Mitchell: The Bill gives new and stronger powers to the police and local authorities to move travellers on. The police powers depend on travellers causing a nuisance, but the local authority power operates whether or not they cause a nuisance. Amendment No. 134 requires the local authority, in the exercise of its powers, to be subject to a similar test as that for police powers—for example, causing damage, threatening or abusive language, the site not being tucked out of sight, polluting the land and so on.
      I fear that there will be problems if amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are not accepted. It is easy for the Government to take authoritarian powers to move people on. The question is where do they go. The answer is likely to be somewhere a good deal worse. I shall give a practical example. In my constituency for somewhat overlong a particular scrubland site—common land—has been occupied by a small group of gipsies. Mr. Bob Dodd and the others were moved on about a month ago. As a result, they moved about 700 yd away and ended up close to some houses and near a river. Indeed, they are on a much more prominent and unsuitable site than they were before. I fear that if the Bill is not amended, that will be a microcosm of what will happen in the future. Gipsies, travellers and the like will be moved on, but will settle on somewhere worse and more unsuitable than the place that they occupied originally.
      316
      May I just pause to put this into context? Britain has a long tradition and record of not persecuting nonconforming minorities, and those of a nomadic way of life are just one of those minorities. Before there were planning controls, gipsies had umpteen rural sites to which they could go, provided that they did not cause a nuisance, but we in Parliament have introduced intensive planning controls. We have denied travellers the use of their traditional stopover sites. We are now invited to have them moved on, nuisance or not, whether or not there is somewhere available to which they can go. My amendment No. 135 means that when the gipsy fails to move on—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
      Question agreed to.
      Sir David Mitchell: My amendment No. 135 means that when the gipsies fail to move on and the council goes to the magistrates, the court must satisfy itself that there is somewhere else in the locality where they can go, temporarily or permanently.
      The situation is worse than it appears. At the same time as he seeks new powers to move people on more quickly and easily, the Minister has made it less likely that there will be somewhere for them to go. While admitting that fewer than 40 per cent. of councils have made adequate provision, he has repealed the duty of councils to provide adequate gipsy sites. He has repealed the grants to councils to provide sites and withdrawn the circular countenancing gipsy sites in green belts, often the gipsies' natural habitat. He has issued a new circular which specifically refers to planning authorities avoiding encroachment on open countryside for gipsy sites. Even though the Minister must know that gipsies can only afford to buy agricultural land in rural areas, nevertheless that prohibition has been introduced by his latest circular.
      When the Minister proposed stringent powers to move travellers on and closing many of the places that they may have hoped to go to, I asked him what they should do. He replied:
      "We believe that in future travellers should seek to make provision through the planning system."
      He added:
      "I have every confidence, however, that if gipsies make proper applications to local planning authorities, they will be provided with planning permission."—[Official Report, 26 July 1993; Vol. 229, c.972.]
      I must take the Minister into the real world where 90 per cent. of all gipsy planning applications are refused. Any gipsy site application in the south-east of England will meet implacable opposition from local residential groups, which will have solicitors, barristers and planning consultants available to them.
      I have an example. Over the years, a Mr. Cooper has sought a gipsy site in a Hampshire location. Hampshire county council, not Mr. Cooper, told me that his costs have exceeded £10,000. Where do the Mr. Bob Dodds of this world and the like, to whom I referred earlier, get the money to pursue a planning application on that scale? What happens to the semi-literate gipsy? What address can be put on a planning application? Will a council entertain a planning application from someone of no fixed address? Does the Minister really expect some of the more

      317
      disadvantaged of our fellow citizens, some of wham are semi-literate, to take on the whole force of implacable local opposition to a planning site application?
      What we need is transitional sites with four things: privacy, a standpipe for water, a lavatory and a skip for rubbish, and nothing else. Those people want to be alone, away, not part of town or village life. It is something that we should not deny them. After all, they make no great call on the public purse. They do not expect to be given mortgage relief, they do not seek council housing and they do not claim housing benefit.
      We should seriously consider what is to happen to those people when the new powers are exercised to move them on from the site that they are on, with no proper site for them to go to and with the certitude that they will turn up somewhere where they will be a darned sight more of a nuisance than they were in the first place.
      Mr. Fraser: I wish to speak to amendment No. 272, but I must say how much I admired what the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) had to say. I agreed with almost every word.
      One does not say this lightly, but what the Government are doing with the Bill will lead to something like ethnic harassment and the chasing of a group of vulnerable people from one part of the country to another. In Committee, we took the strongest possible exception to the abolition of the duty of local authorities to provide gipsy sites. It is a duty with which I was proud to be associated in a Labour Government. Also, I was a Minister in the Labour Government who provided the 100 per cent. grant.
      The clause would throw the matter entirely out of balance. The abolition of the duty of local authorities to provide designated sites is almost as effective as the abolition of the 100 per cent. grant in preventing new sites from being set up. As soon as the grant goes, there will be no possibility of more than a handful of local authorities providing sites. At present, at least 38 per cent. of local authorities have provided sides.
      We tabled amendment No. 272 because we cannot vote again on Report on the abolition of the duty. We chose to table instead an amendment in relation to ending the 100 per cent grant.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not it a fact that all the organisations that have been canvassed for their views on this, including Save the Children and many responsible organisations, have said clearly that the Government have got it wrong? If the Government are not prepared to revoke this section of the Bill tonight, those organisations will be strongly in favour of an amendment such as that to which my hon. Friend is speaking, which seeks to delay the provision for another five years.
      Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amendment is the only alternative which we can put through on Report. He is also absolutely right that almost every single representation that Committee members had from caring organisations and organisations that understand the problem were wholly against the line that the Government are taking.
      A Labour Government recognised that we had to have a humane and civilised balance between the rights of gipsies on one hand and the needs and understandable concerns of ordinary communities on the other.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend aware that the police have also expressed concerns about the repeal of the Caravan Sites Act 1968? They are concerned that, if the Act is repealed, travellers will be moved from constabulary to constabulary in ever-decreasing circles at great public expense which will waste police time?
      Mr. Fraser: That is absolutely right. No expenditure will be saved and police time will be wasted. If there is an alleged nuisance, it will be replaced in place after place as people are harassed from one part of the country to another.
      We recognise that there are people whose habitual way of life is nomadic and who are known as gipsies. They have existed in this county as a separate ethnic group for hundreds of years. George Borrow described them as saying that the open air was a life which was very sweet. They have a separate language, and some English words are borrowed from the gipsy language. The word "pal" —I do not think that gipsies would use that word with regard to the Ministers—is a romany word. They have a separate way of life, and they have been horribly persecuted.
      Europe is recognising the rights of ethnic groups and it must be the worst possible time to put law backwards as the Bill does. We recognise their separate rights and the legitimate concern which members of the public have about gipsy encampments. It is a real problem in our increasingly urban countryside, and more industrialisation in the countryside means that there is less prospect of employment for gipsies. We recognised that a balance had to be struck and we struck it by including a duty on local authorities to provide the sites and giving them the resources to do so. Hand in hand with that provision went the restrictions that were available to the local authorities that provided the sites.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What is the difference between a gipsy and a traveller and does the Caravan Sites Act 1968 apply only to gipsies or also to travellers? If it applies to new age travellers, is it not the case that, by obliging local authorities to provide sites, we are encouraging an ever-increasing number of new age travellers and therefore the ever-increasing provision of sites, which will cost ever-increasing sums of public money?
      Mr. Fraser: I think that about a month ago the Solicitors' Journal contained a thorough discussion of the subject. The 1968 Act provided for people with a separate, nomadic way of life and drew a distinction between gipsies, as a recognised group, and travellers.
      There should be a balance. One was struck in the 1968 Act, but this legislation will impose a harsh and harassing regime on a people whose way of life has been established for centuries, thus putting them under more pressure, and will tilt the balance of the law in the wrong direction. It is no mark of a civilised country or sensitive and sensible legislation for us to proceed in the way in which the Government are doing. Although there will be some constriction, we will countenance it only if a duty is placed on local authorities to provide for a need that has been recognised for decades, if not for centuries, and if they are given the resources to do so.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): First, I must respond to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell).
      It is important to remember that clause 67 is discretionary. It gives local authorities discretion and it would be for a responsible local authority to decide whether to exercise its powers. It is conceivable that a responsible local authority, acting reasonably, might wish to use its powers in circumstances that are not specified in my hon. Friend's amendments. For example, an unauthorised encampment on land adjacent to a main road might cause a serious traffic hazard or serious nuisance to neighbouring landowners or the public. My hon. Friend's amendments unnecessarily limit the discretion that we propose to give to local authorities.
      It is also important to bear in mind the fact that clauses 67 and 68 relate to all unauthorised campers and not only to gipsies. New age travellers adopt their life style as a matter of choice. They cannot possibly be described as true nomads, or in the somewhat romantic terms in which gipsies have been described this evening. Furthermore, new age travellers appear to have no wish to establish themselves or reside on authorised sites, but simply want to roam through the countryside unchecked. My hon. Friend's amendments would accord them a degree of protection under the law that they do not have at present
      and certainly do not deserve.
      I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West that local authorities should not be allowed to use the powers provided in the Bill to harass and confound families who have nowhere to turn. The powers that we propose are not intended to give authorities such licence; nor is it reasonable to suspect that they will make indiscriminate use of the powers. Local authorities have wide experience in dealing tolerantly with unauthorised camping. The powers that we propose to give them are discretionary and we expect them to continue to act humanely and sensibly. We have issued advice, which makes it clear that authorities should not evict gipsies needlessly and we intend to re-issue and reaffirm that advice when the new provisions come into force.
      I must draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West to the fact that in that advice we make it clear that local authorities should consider emergency stopping places and that, where such places are identified, steps should be taken to arrange regular refuse collection and that, as soon as possible, they should provide other facilities, such as water supply and sanitation. I think that that meets the concerns that were expressed by my hon. Friend.
      With regard to amendment No. 135, I should like to make it clear that clause 67 already provides a range of statutory defences for persons against whom proceedings are brought. Specifically, mechanical breakdown, illness and other immediate emergencies are all grounds on which a traveller may claim that his unlawful entry on to land was unavoidable. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the action that we are taking will meet his concerns. It is certainly not intended that people should be harassed from pillar to post.
      320
      10.15 pm
      As was made clear by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), amendment No. 272 seeks to secure 100 per cent. grant for the capital costs of site provision for a further five years after the repeal of part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. I remind the House that the 100 per cent. grant was introduced way back in 1978 in response to a recommendation of Sir John Cripps, in his report of 1976, that such grant should be introduced for just five years for the purpose of stimulating local authority site provisions. Instead, we have maintained the 100 per cent. grant for 14 years—far longer than was envisaged by Cripps—and local authorities have come to depend wholly on it to fund any new proposal. I do not think there is any other case of a grant of 100 per cent. This is a consequence not foreseen by Cripps and certainly not envisaged by Parliament.
      Although more than £87 million has been expended since 1978, local authority site provision has failed to keep pace with the growing demand for sites. The result is that the level of unauthorised camping has hardly fallen at all throughout the period during which the grant has been available.
      The simple truth is that the 1968 Act has failed and that it is incumbent on the House, on behalf of local communities plagued by unauthorised camping and gipsy families still without decent accommodation, to find a realistic and fair solution to this long-standing problem. We believe that our proposals offer the best way forward towards such a solution, and I urge the House to resist the amendments.
      Sir David Mitchell: In view of my hon. Friend's response—in particular, his announcement that he will issue a new circular covering the items he mentioned to the House—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 72

      OFFENCES RELATING TO TERRORISM
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in page 57, line 41, leave out from 'possession' to 'for' in line 43.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 225, in page 57, line 41, leave out 'a reasonable suspicion' and insert 'the reasonable conclusion'.
      Mr. Fraser: Clause 72 creates a new offence. These amendments are alternatives: the Government are free to choose one or the other. The offence that is being created is having an article in one's possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism to which the clause applies. No hon. Member wants a situation in which people go around in possession of articles intended for purposes of terrorism. The objection to the way in which the offence is formulated lies in the words
      "in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in his possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
      Unfortunately, the nature of the offence being created does not derive from the defendant's actually having an article in his possession for the purposes of terrorism. It might be a gun, a detonator or some other explosive device, all of which would normally be articles illegally possessed. On the other hand, it might be a perfectly lawful object,

      321
      such as binoculars, a camera, a notebook, a mobile telephone or a measuring tape. The substance of the offence is not the possession of the article but the fact that the possession gives rise to reasonable suspicion.
      Of course we want to strengthen the law against terrorists, but here we are creating sus law that is quite literally so. The problem about sus laws is that the issue becomes not what the defendant did or intended to do but what a police officer or some other person suspected he had done or intended to do. So, ultimately, the offence is literally a matter of conjecture and suspicion.
      Theft is not defined as "he steals who takes and carries away something capable of being stolen, giving rise to the suspicion that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of the item". We do not define the offence of supplying dangerous drugs as "being in possession of drugs giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they were intended for supply". And we do not define grievous bodily harm as "wounding somebody under circumstances that give rise to reasonable suspicion that somebody has been done harm".
      The Government are free to choose between the two amendments as they wish. They create an objective test of whether the person was in possession of an article with a view to terrorist activity or in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable conclusion. It will then be left to the jury to reach an appropriate decision on whether an offence has been committed.
      The problems with the formulation in the clause are, first, it is not good law; secondly, the innocent risk being convicted; and, thirdly and also important, it may give rise to a guilty person being convicted and then becoming a martyr. That does not fight terrorism but gives terrorism a chance of guilty martyrs who can then attack the law under which they were convicted.
      If we are to unite against terrorism and create a new offence, let us do it in a sensible, acceptable way that will not lead to innocent people being convicted or guilty people having alibis in the eyes of their followers.
      Mr. Maclean: Clause 72 makes it an offence, under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, for a person to have any article in his or her possession in circumstances that give rise to reasonable suspicion that the article is in his or her possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It will be a defence for the person to prove that the article is not in his or her possession for such a purpose.
      That follows the terms of the offence as it already exists in Northern Ireland under section 30 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. Amendment No. 224 would require the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that the article was in the person's possession for a terrorist purpose. That would effectively render the offence unworkable as it might often prove impossible for the prosecution to establish that.
      For that reason, the present wording of the offence requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, from the combination of the nature of the article, the circumstances of its possession and the statements of the accused, a terrorist purpose in the possession of the article can be suspected. If such a suspicion is established, it is not unreasonable then to require the accused to explain his or her possession of the article or to show that he or she was not in possession of it. I emphasise that it will not be the
      322
      simple possession of the article but its possession in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable of its connection with terrorism that will constitute the offence.
      Amendment No. 225 would make no practical difference to the test of guilt in that offence. Unlike the concept of reasonable suspicion, the concept of reasonable conclusion is not commonly used in criminal law and its use here would give rise to uncertainty about the proper meaning of the provision.
      I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I give him credit for his genuine concern and for seeking, in his view, to make the test fairer and safer. But the test in the new offence is fair and should remain. Despite his reasonable and courteous attempt, the route that he proposes would not work and would undermine the clause. That was not his intention, but I am sorry that I cannot accept his amendments.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 74

      INDECENT PSEUDO-PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN
      Amendments made: No. 182, in page 62, line 36, leave out 'which, being stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means,' and insert
      'stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which'
      No. 131, in page 62, line 38, at end insert—
      '( ) in subsection(3)—

      (a) in paragraph (a), for the words "3 months" there shall be substituted the words "6 months"; and

      (b) in paragraph (b), for the words "two years" there shall be substituted the words "3 years";'. No. 183, in page 62, line 45, leave out 'which, being stoned electronically,' and insert

      'stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which'.
      No. 132, in page 63, line 10, leave out '3' and insert '6'.
      No. 84, in page 63, line 14, at end insert—
      '(8) The Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 shall be amended as provided in subsections (9) and (10) below.
      (9) In Article 2 (interpretation)—
      (a) in paragraph (2)—

      (i) in the definition of "child", after "child" there shall be inserted the words "subject to paragraph (3)(c)";

      (ii) for the definition of "photograph" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

      ""indecent pseudo-photograph" includes—

      (a) a copy of an indecent pseudo-photograph; and

      (b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a pseudo-photograph;

      "photograph" includes—

      (a) the negative as well as the positive version; and

      (b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph;

      "pseudo-photograph" means an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise
      howsoever, which appears to be a photograph;"
      (b) in paragraph (3)—

      (i) in sub-paragraph (a), after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph";

      (ii) in sub-paragraph (b), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "and so as respects pseudo-photographs; and";

      (iii) after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

      "(c) if the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated as showing a child and so shall a pseudo-photograph where the predominant impression

      323
      conveyed is that the person shown is a child notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult.".
      (10) In Article 3 (which, for Northern Ireland, penalises the taking and distribution of indecent photographs of children and related acts)—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (1)—

      (i) after the word "taken" there shall be inserted the words "or to make";

      (ii) after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph";

      (b) in sub-paragraphs (b),(c) and (d) of paragraph (1), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs";

      (c) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (3), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".

      (11) Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (which, for Northern Ireland, penalises the possession of indecent photographs of children) shall be amended as follows—

      (a) in paragraph (1), after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph" and the words from "(meaning" to "16)" shall be omitted;

      (b) in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (2), after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph"; and

      (c) in paragraph (6), the reference to the coming into operation of that Article shall be construed, for the purposes of the amendments made by this subsection, as a reference to the coming into force of this subsection.'.-[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 75

      ARRESTABLE OFFENCES TO INCLUDE CERTAIN OFFENCES RELATING TO OBSCENITY OR INDECENCY
      Amendments made: No. 85, in page 63, line 30, at end insert
      '(4) The Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 shall be amended as provided in subsections (5) and (6) below.
      (5) In Article 26(2) (arrestable offences), after sub-paragraph (e), there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(f) an offence under Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children).".
      (6) At the end of Part II of Schedule 5 (serious arrestable offences mentioned in Article 87(2)(b)) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (1978 N.I.17)
      13. Article 3 (indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children).".'-[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 76

      INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN: SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT
      Amendments made: No. 86, in page 63, line 31, at beginning insert '(1)'.No. 87, in page 63, line 35, at end insert—
      '(2) In Article 15(3) of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (which makes a person convicted in Northern Ireland of certain offences relating to indecent photographs of children liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale) there shall be inserted after the word "to" the words "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or" and at the end the words ", or both".'.-[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 78

      OBSCENE, OFFENSIVE OR ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS
      Amendments made: No. 293, in page 65, line 38, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'. No. 294, in page 65, line 38, leave out '4' and insert '5'. No. 295, in page 65, line 39, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an offence committed before this section comes into force.'-[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 82

      CONTRACTED OUT PARTS OF PRISONS
      Amendments made: No. 371, in page 68, line 10, after 'him' insert
      ',or (if the contract so provides) by sub-contractors of his,'.
      No. 372, in page 68, line 26, leave out 'to run it' and insert
      'with the Secretary of State for the running of it'.
      No. 373, in page 68, line 27, at end insert—
      "sub-contractor', in relation to a contracted out prison, means a person who has contracted with the contractor for the running of it or any part of it.'.-[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 87

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 374, in page 70, line 22, at beginning insert—
      '( ) In subsection (5) of section 85 of the 1991 Act (officers of contracted out prisons), for the words "The contractor shall" there shall be substituted the words "The contractor and any sub-contractor of his shall each".
      ( ) In subsection (3)(b) of section 88 of that Act (intervention by the Secretary of State), for the words "the contractor shall" there shall be substituted the words "the contractor and any sub-contractor of his shall each".
      ( ) In subsection (5) of that section, after the words "the contractor," there shall be inserted the words "any sub-contractor of his,".'.
      No. 375, in page 70, line 22, leave out 'the 1991 Act' and insert 'that Act'. No. 376, in page 71, line 2, leave out `and'.-[Mr. Maclean.]
      No. 377, in page 71, line 7, at end insert 'and
      (d) after the definition of "prisoner escort arrangements" there shall be inserted the following definition—
      "'sub-contractor' has the meaning given by section 84(2) above.".'.-[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 71, leave out from end of line 32 to end of line 37 on page 80.
      The amendment would remove clauses 88 to 103 from the Bill. The Government have decided to change in a piecemeal way the criminal justice system in Scotland by introducing major changes to the prison system—not least the possibility of privatisation—without any pilot projects taking place.
      Tonight, the Minister refused the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) which would have allowed pilot projects to take place. We see tonight the possibility that privatisation will take place wholesale in the Scottish prison system.
      The Scottish Prison Officers Association, like its brother organisation in England and Wales, feels aggrieved at the unilateral action which the Government have taken regarding its future. It is an organisation with no political affiliations. It certainly could not be described as anything like a militant trade union—in fact, it has not had a national

      325
      strike for 55 years. More than 95 per cent. of industrial disputes have been settled and they have almost always been about staff safety and manning levels.
      Yet the Government have decided to stop the prison officers taking industrial action by refusing them the right to strike. The pre-emptory way in which the Government are treating the prison officers is leading to increasing fear and tension within the Scottish prison system. I witnessed that personally only a few weeks ago when, along with five parliamentary colleagues, I visited Barlinnie prison in Glasgow. Many prison officers told us of their concerns. One officer, who had 16 years service and had seen the disruption to the Scottish prison system in the 1980s, with riots in Peterhead and elsewhere, said that there was not the same frustration and tension in the 1980s as exists in the prison system at present.
      Yet the Government are going ahead with clause 92, which will contract out prisons, and clause 99, which will offer the opportunity of new prisons—not least the spectacle of floating prisons. The Government have never elaborated on what they mean by the concept of floating prisons and I should like the Minister to address that point tonight. Does the Minister mean disused oil rigs, as some people are suggesting? If so, how does that make for a humane environment for prisoners? The official Opposition's main objection to the Government's decision is that, in their piecemeal way, they are putting provisions into the Bill that will have major implications for Scotland, yet they have not addressed the problems that currently exist in the Scottish prison system.
      10.30 pm
      The Home Office has given a commitment to cease the degrading and inhumane practice of slopping out. think that the target date was 1996 which, perhaps, could be revised. The Minister of State, Home Office may be surprised to learn that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not uttered one word on a target date for ceasing slopping out in Scotland. There are 5,185 prison cells in Scotland, 44 per cent. of which—2,291—have no access to night sanitation. That means that more than 2,000 prisoners are locked up in their cells for 16 hours per day with no access to night sanitation. I have seen the supposed improvements that the Scottish Prison Service tried to introduce in Barlinnie by installing chemical toilets. That Government commitment has placed the prisoners in an even more degrading position and has caused evert more tension among both prisoners and prison staff in Barlinnie.
      In Scotland, the figure of 44 per cent. of prison cells with no access to night sanitation compares unfavourably with the position in England and Wales, where the figure is only 12 per cent. In Dumfries prison, which houses young offenders, none of the 146 cells have access to night sanitation. In Perth, Peterhead and Polmont there are virtually no facilities. At Barlinnie prison, the inmates in 829 out of 833 prison cells slop out. Notwithstanding that Lord Justice Woolf, Judge Stephen Tumim and former Home Secretaries such as Lord Carr have called the practice inhumane and degrading, the Government and the Scottish Office remain mute on the subject. If they are to do anything, they should deal with those issues.
      The Government should also address the problem of overcrowding. The population of Greenock prison is 52 per cent. above capacity, Edinburgh prison is 36 per cent. above capacity, Inverness is 28 per cent. above capacity and Barlinnie is 27 per cent. above capacity. Past practice
      326
      suggests that overcrowding causes disruption, brings the danger of riots and, more important, prevents a positive relationship between staff and inmates. But the Scottish Office is careering down the road of prison privatisation.
      If the Minister looks across the Atlantic to America he will see that prison privatisation does not work. A recent study in the Journal of Criminal Justice considered the prison system in America from the criteria of cost effectiveness, treatment of employees, quality of service and public accountability. The American prison service did not obtain pass marks on any of those criteria. We should not look to the United States for examples because in the US 1.25 million people are in prison—proportionately, five times the number of prisoners in the United Kingdom. If we had the same proportion of people in prison in the United Kingdom, our prison population would be 250,000.
      We should not adopt the American system; we have nothing to learn from it. We should look to our European partners and to countries such as Denmark, where there is an extensive family support system and a much-reduced prison population.
      We require, and Labour demands, a disciplined, humane and reforming prison system. We consider privatisation—prison privatisation—to be wrong, both in principle and in practice. First, those who are sentenced to imprisonment by the state should be deprived of their liberty by those who are accountable to the state, not to private shareholders. Secondly, privatising prisons diverts us from the proper priority of improving our Prison Service.
      The Government set standards for running private prisons, and they should concentrate on maintaining them in all prisons—not just the small number that are privately run. A Labour Government would bring the Scottish prison system back within the state at the earliest opportunity. The Government should abandon their fixation with privatisation and deal with the problems that manifestly exist in the Scottish prison system. In that spirit, the official Opposition commend the amendment.
      Mrs. Ewing: In supporting amendment No. 221, I wish to speak also to my amendments Nos. 321 and 323 to 329. I place on record my special interest, in that my elder brother was a member of the Scottish Prison Service, having recently retired from Polymont training college, and my nephew works in the service as an officer.
      I am concerned about the service's future. I acknowledge the importance of its qualified, trained members. In the context of the Bill, we are seeing privatisation of the Prison Service by stealth. That is wrong. Society has a huge responsibility to recognise the importance of qualified and trained Prison Service staff.
      I want to put a number of questions to the Minister. If he cannot answer them now, perhaps he will place answers in the Library or give them in a letter. How many prison officers have taken early retirement as a result of the Government proposals introduced during the progress of the Bill? What are they being offered? How many will receive a pension plan and redundancy payment? How will that reduction in trained and qualified prison officers compare with the number seeking to be recruited into the Scottish Prison Service? What is the current recruitment rate, by comparison with the number of staff in their late 40s or early 50s who are retiring early?

      327
      How much are the Government spending in that context? How much money are they putting on the table to ensure that men and women leave the Prison Service as early as possible?
      What is the Government's ultimate goal? Do they plan to privatise the Scottish Prison Service? Is this just the beginning of privatisation? Is it the Government's ultimate intention to farm out the service to people who have no responsibility, accountability or reason to answer to elected representatives at local government or parliamentary level? What do the Government have in mind?
      The fundamental principle underpinning the issue is that if the state decides to pass sentence on an individual for committing a crime, it has responsibility for ensuring that that sentence is served under the auspices of the state. Does anyone believe that that concept can be privatised by individuals who are motivated by profit? I hope that the Minister will address that principle as well as the other issues.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to respond to the questions that have been asked by hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked about floating prisons. I should mention that clause 99 contains a provision that would allow a prison to be situated on water. That is purely a contingency measure in case of pressure on accommodation. We have no plans to use that provision in the foreseeable future.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about overcrowding at Greenock. I am glad to say that we plan a 50-cell accommodation block, subject to the availability of resources, which should alleviate the problem of sharing accommodation there.
      The hon. Gentleman made a powerful plea for the ending of the degrading practice of slopping out. The prison survey published in 1992 showed that prisoners attached more importance to improving facilities for family contact, and we believe that that is an important objective, although we shall, of course, do our best to get more integral sanitation as soon as we can.
      With regard to these provisions, hon. Members argued that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not have powers to market test prisoner escorting and custody. We believe that the Scottish Prison Service faces some major challenges in the years ahead if it is to keep in secure custody all those committed by the courts while maintaining the standards of humanity and propriety that the public have a right to expect. Clauses 88 to 103 will assist the service in that task.
      We see no difficulty in the principle of private sector involvement. If a private contractor wins, he will have to meet the standards laid down in the contract. His performance will be carefully monitored, and the Secretary of State for Scotland will remain accountable to Parliament for the whole prison service.
      The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) wanted to know whether this would lead to redundancies. Redundancies are by no means an inevitable consequence of market testing. Areas that have already been market tested include those involved in the storage and distribution services from central stores, Fauldhouse, and the works and maintenance functions in four prisons. In four cases, the in-house Prison Service team was successful. However, the works contract at Barlinnie,
      328
      Glasgow, was awarded to AMEC Construction (Scotland) Ltd. As a result, £4.5 million was saved, which could then be deployed for other pressing purposes.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he knows, Polmont young offenders institution is in my constituency. The concern there is about teamwork. A young person can be moved from a criminal life into a non-recidivist position, but it is all about teamwork. The concern of those officers is that the team will be broken up because of the market forces. Has the Minister considered exempting young offenders institutions from this terrible Bill?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No detailed decisions have been taken at this point. The considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned about teamwork will be taken into account. The first step is, of course, to seek the powers in the Bill. I make the point again that in-house teams frequently win. If they perform according to the details of the specification, everybody benefits, as they provide value for money for the public.
      Mrs. Ewing rose—
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I give way to the hon. Lady, as she has made a speech already.
      Mrs. Ewing: The Minister mentioned market testing and the savings expected. Will he set against that the important aspect of ensuring that those in charge of people in prison are qualified and trained effectively? Does he not see the dilemma in saving money against the principles of ensuring that there is that safety and regulation?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady is right. These considerations must be properly taken into account in any tender specification put forward. I stress to the House that no less than £154 million was spent in 1993-94 on prisons in Scotland. We believe that we have a duty to get the best possible service and value for money for the taxpayer. As I mentioned earlier, the English experience has shown that market testing of prisons can be a catalyst for improving standards for prisoners, and value for money for the taxpayer. We expect the same to happen in Scotland and are engaged now on an ambitious programme of change and modernisation. There is no reason why the Scottish Prison Service should not meet the challenge of competition. In-house teams will be encouraged to bid and there is no reason why they should not win on merit.
      We believe that contracting out prisoner escorting also holds out the possibility of achieving better value for money all round. For prison officers, it means that their skills can be used to extend the opportunities available to prisoners to deal with their offending behaviour and prepare themselves for release. There is now a proven track record of market testing prisoner escorting and custody arrangements in England and Wales with clear improvements in cost-effectiveness, whether contracts are awarded to the private sector or the in-house team. It is only right that there should be no barriers to Scotland participating in this process. I therefore recommend that the House reject the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 294.

      Division No. 205]

      [10.44pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fisher, Mark

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Flynn, Paul

      Ainger, Nick

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Allen, Graham

      Foulkes, George

      Alton, David

      Fraser, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Galloway, George

      Ashton, Joe

      Gapes, Mike

      Austin-Walker, John

      Garrett, John

      Barnes, Harry

      George, Bruce

      Barron, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Battle, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bayley, Hugh

      Godsiff, Roger

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bell, Stuart

      Gordon, Mildred

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Graham, Thomas

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Grant, Bernle (Tottenham)

      Benton, Joe

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Grocott, Bruce

      Berry, Roger

      Gunnell, John

      Betts, Clive

      Hain, Peter

      Blair, Tony

      Hall, Mike

      Boateng, Paul

      Hanson, David

      Bradley, Keith

      Harvey, Nick

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Heppell, John

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

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Burden, Richard

      Hoey, Kate

      Byers, Stephen

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Caborn, Richard

      Home Robertson, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cann, Jamie

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hutton, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Illsley, Eric

      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, 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

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jowell, Tessa

      Cousins, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cox, Tom

      Keen, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davidson, Ian

      Lewis, Terry

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Denham, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dixon, Don

      McAllion, John

      Dobson, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McCartney, Ian

      Dowd, Jim

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McKelvey, William

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Enright, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Etherington, Bill

      Maclennan, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McWilliam, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Madden, Max

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mahon, Alice

      330

      Mandelson, Peter

      Rowlands, Ted

      Marek, Dr John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maxton, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Short, Clare

      Meale, Alan

      Simpson, Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Milburn, Alan

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

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Soley, Clive

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morley, Elliot

      Spellar, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mudie, George

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Paul

      Stevenson, George

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Stott, Roger

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Oliner, William

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tyler, Paul

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Vaz, Keith

      Parry, Robert

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Patchett, Terry

      Wallace, James

      Pendry, Tom

      Walley, Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pope, Greg

      Watson, Mike

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wilson, Brian

      Radice, Giles

      Winnick, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Wise, Audrey

      Raynsford, Nick

      Worthington, Tony

      Reid, Dr John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rendel, David

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rogers, Allan

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mr. Michael Connarty.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bowis, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Alexander, Richard

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Brazier, Julian

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bright, Graham

      Amess, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Ashby, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Atkins, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Burt, Alistair

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baldry, Tony

      Carttiss, Michael

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cash, William

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Churchill, Mr

      Bates, Michael

      Clappison, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Bendell, Vivian

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Coe, Sebastian

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Colvin, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Congdon, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Conway, Derek

      Booth, Hartley

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Couchman, James

      Bowden, Andrew

      Cran, James

      331

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nil Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Duncan, Alan

      Key, Robert

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Dunn, Bob

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Eggar, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evennett, David

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Faber, David

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Fabricant, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lidington, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lightbown, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Forth, Eric

      Lord, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Maclean, David

      French, Douglas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gallie, Phil

      Madel, Sir David

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Marland, Paul

      Gillen, Cheryl

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mates, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mills, Iain

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, William

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Needham, Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Norris, Steve

      Heald, Oliver

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hendry, Charles

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Paice, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Pawsey, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pickles, Eric

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

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Redwood, RI Hon John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      332

      Richards, Rod

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Thomason, Roy

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Thumham, Peter

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tracey, Richard

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Trend, Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Waller, Gary

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Watts, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Whitney, Ray

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Whittingdale, John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spring, Richard

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sproat, Iain

      Wilkinson, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Willetts, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stephen, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Stewart, Allan

      Wolfson, Mark

      Streeter, Gary

      Wood, Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Sweeney, Walter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sykes, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mr. Andrew MacKay.

      Amendment accordingly negatived.

    Clause 90
      POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS PERFORMING ESCORT FUNCTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 137, in page 73, line 19, leave out 'hat' and insert 'headgear'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 93

      OFFICERS OF CONTRACTED OUT PRISONS
      Amendment made: No. 138, in page 75, line 19, at end insert—
      '(6) Every contracted out prison shall have a medical officer, who shall be a registered medical practitioner appointed by the contractor.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 94
      POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT CONTRACTED OUT PRISONS
      Amendment made: No. 139, in page 75, line 29, leave out 'hat' and insert 'headgear'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 96

      CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF 1989 ACT, PRISON RULES AND DIRECTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 140, in page 76, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
      '(2) In section 3 of the 1989 Act (general superintendence of prisons)—

      (a) in subsection (1), the words from "who shall appoint" to the end shall be omitted; and

      (b) subsection (3) shall not apply.'.

      No. 141, in page 76, line 18, leave out first 'and'.
      No. 142, in page 76, line 18, at end insert
      ',41(4) (detention of person suspected of bringing prohibited article into prison) and 41B(3) (testing prisoners for drugs)'.
      No. 143, in page 76, line 24, leave out 'and 41(3) (prohibited articles)' and insert
      ',41(3), (4), (6) and (8) (detention of person suspected of bringing prohibited article into prison) and 41B(1) (testing prisoners for drugs)'.
      No. 144, in page 76, leave out line 32 and insert—
      '(6) Sections 37 (discontinuance of prison), 41(2A) and (2B) (power to search for prohibited articles) and 41A (powers of search by authorised employees) of that Act shall not apply.'.
      —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 98

      CONTRACTED OUT FUNCTIONS AT DIRECTLY MANAGED PRISONS
      Amendments made: No. 145, in page 78, line 1, after '41(3)', insert ', (4), (6) and (8)'.
      No. 146, in page 78, line 3, leave out
      '(5) Any reference in subsections (1) to (3) above' and insert—
      '(4A) Section 41(2A) and (2B) of the 1989 Act (search of person suspected of bringing prohibited article into prison) shall not apply in relation to a prisoner custody officer performing contracted out functions at a directly managed prison.
      (5) Any reference in the foregoing provisions of this section'.
      —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 112

      SERVICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 85, line 7, at end insert—
      '(5) Subsection (6) below shall apply where—

      (a) the certificate of independence of any organisation has been cancelled, at any time before the passing of this Act, in consequence of the removal of the name of that organisation from a list of trade unions kept under provisions of the relevant employment legislation; but

      (b) it appears to the Certification Officer that the organisation would have remained on the list, and that the certificate would have remained in force, had that legislation had effect at and after that time in accordance with subsection (1) above.

      (6) Where this subsection applies—

      (a) the Certification Officer shall restore the name to the list and delete from his records any entry relating to the cancellation of the certificate;

      (b) the removal of the name from the list, the making of the deleted entry and the cancellation of the certificate shall be deemed never to have occurred; and

      (c) the organisation shall accordingly be deemed, for the purposes for which it is treated by virtue of subsection (4) above as having been a trade union, to have been independent throughout the period between the cancellation of the certificate and the deletion of the entry relating to that cancellation.'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 281, in clause 113, page 85, line 11, after 'discipline', insert
      'otherwise than by an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which the Secretary of State is a party being a Minister falling within section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.'.
      No. 280, in page 85, line 18, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where the relevant act or breach of duty under subsection (1) or subsection (3) above is done or committed as the case may be in contemplation of a trade dispute, the court shall
      334
      not entertain an action for damages and the remedies available to the Secretary of State or other plaintiff shall be a declaration or an injunction.'.
      Government amendment No. 217.
      Amendment No. 279, in page 85, leave out lines 40 to 42.
      Government amendments Nos. 218 and 219.
      11 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to consider further the possible effect of the prohibition on inducing industrial action in clause 113 on the eligibility of the unions concerned to hold a certificate of independence under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. We have always made it clear that we want independent, effective and responsible trade unions in the Prison Service and that there should be no bar to the ability of unions which represent prison staff to be granted certificates of independence provided that the usual criteria are met. Certification grants significant rights and we want the prison staff to have them.
      However, on further investigation, it appeared that there was a risk that, as matters stand, the certification officer might reach the conclusion that clause 113 would limit the unions' freedom of action in a way that would call into question their entitlement to a certificate of independence. Amendment No. 217 eliminates that risk by requiring the certification officer to disregard clause 113 when deciding whether a union is entitled to a certificate of independence.
      We also needed to consider the possibility that, because of the anomalous position under existing law, as declared in the rulings on the November injunctions, the certification officer may deem it necessary to delist the unions concerned and cancel their existing certificates of independence before the Bill comes into force. Amendment No. 216 deals with that situation by retrospectively overruling any such delisting or cancellation of a certificate. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree that the amendments honour the undertaking that my hon. Friend gave in Committee and I commend them to the House on that basis.
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to some of the fears that were expressed in Committee. It is quite clear, as we stressed at that stage, that an extremely untidy situation has arisen due to a rather opportunistic approach by the Government, which has left the prison officers, the Prison Governors Association and the unions involved in an extremely difficult position. Putting things right over registration is not sufficient.
      I especially draw to the attention of the House amendment No. 281, which restores some fairness. The amendment effectively restores the right to take most industrial action. Without the amendment, representatives of prison officers would not enjoy any freedom to engage in collective action. The amendment says that industrial action is legal where the trade dispute is with the Secretary of State. That makes disputes between a union and the Prison Service legal, and with the addition of section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it makes it clear that, although the Secretary of State is not the direct employer, the dispute is still with him.
      Section 244(2) of that Act goes on to say that the dispute is a valid one where a matter has been considered by a joint

      335
      body—set up by clause 114—and would include discussions on pay and conditions, or is valid where it cannot be settled by negotiation. That covers other eventualities. The Bill makes the Secretary of State responsible for pay, but gives prison officers no negotiating rights. That is the heart of our objection to the unamended clauses. It gives the prison officers nothing in return.
      It could be argued that when there are people who have special responsibilities—the police are in such a category and it may be argued that prison officers are as well—and therefore there are difficulties about taking specific forms of disruptive industrial action, there should be a guarantee against that. If that is desired, such people should be given something in return—for example, a right that guarantees fairness in any negotiations. The mechanism that has avoided disputes in the fire service is precisely such a case in point. At present—the Bill responds to a muddied situation that arose during the latter part of 1993—there is no such balance in the Bill.
      Clause 112, in tandem with clause 114, does not guarantee a fair negotiating process for pay and conditions. Prison officers will no longer have any real power in determining their pay and conditions. The net effect of the amendment would be to force the Secretary of State to be a registered party in any dispute; it would not allow him to abdicate responsibility to the Prison Service and thus wash his hands of any dispute matters. It is extremely questionable whether the end result of the Government's amendment is legitimate in a variety ways as it stands. We urge the Government to accept our amendment. If they then wish to negotiate different arrangements that would guarantee continuity of management as well as fairness for those employed in the Prison Service, that is the way forward that they should take.
      Earlier, we were concerned to hear the comments—made not only by the Prison Officers Association but by the Prison Governors Association—about the dangers in our prisons. We were also concerned about the number of occasions on which they made responsible comments about not only their own conditions but the adequacy of the Prison Service and the public interest. We are worried that, despite the amendment introduced by the Minister, there will still be constraints on that. It would not be in the public interest—never mind in the interest of those who serve in the Prison Service—for the Bill to proceed unamended. In order to be brief, I shall commend amendment No. 281. If it is not accepted by the Government, I call on my hon. Friends, and any hon. Members who want to see fairness between the employees and the Prison Service, to support the amendment in the Lobby.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Anyone who heard the Minister's speech introducing the amendments —we recognise that the speech was a concession to concerns expressed in Committee—will realise full well why prison officers feel so resentful about so many features of the Bill. The Minister said that the Government have so removed the normal trade union powers of the Prison Officers Association, and, indeed, the Prison Governors Association, that they risk not being recognised as a trade union at all. Therefore, tortuous procedures must be introduced in the Bill—in one case, retrospectively—to
      336
      restore the formal status of the trade union to an organisation that has been deprived of powers that it has had for many years.
      I am not in favour of prison officers taking what is sometimes euphemistically called industrial action. Industrial action is a bad idea, and on many occasions I have put that case to prison officers. On many occasions, I have found ready agreement from them because they do not approve of it either. It is not in any sense a normal part of bargaining or negotiating for prison officers. If the powers, together with the other features of the Bill which they resent so much, were removed in such a way, it would be damaging to moral in the Prison Service, and no return is being offered by the Government.
      Other features of the Bill assume that prison officers will come to the rescue when chaos arises in privatised prisons or privatised escort services, or take for granted the willingness and commitment of prison officers, although their traditional negotiating rights are removed without any alternative being offered. The way in which the Minister introduced the amendments—this was underlined by his words that the Government have stripped trade union rights from prison officers and had to go through a face-saving procedure to restore at least the minimum recognition to their organisation—is a mark of the unreasonable treatment of prison officers on whom we depend to contain extremely violent, extremely badly behaved and, in some cases, dangerous prisoners. Rather than taking that work for granted, we should recognise more properly the contribution that prison officers make to our society and not be quite so ready to remove the rights that they have traditionally enjoyed.
      Mr. Doug Hoyle: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to say that I hope that there will be support for amendment No. 281. Here we have a highly responsible trade union that has not taken national action in 55 years. I wonder why the Government are being so vindictive towards it, stripping away the rights of people who have acted extremely responsibly. I cannot do better than to quote the words of Lord Justice Woolf in his report on the Prison Service:
      "Members of the prison service as a whole, against heavy odds, have managed over a number of years to contain an almost impossible situation by showing immense dedication, courage and professionalism."
      Yet their reward from the Government is to have their rights taken away. As has been said, we so often have to rely on them. They are a safety valve. They can tell us what is happening in prisons. The only time that they have taken action has been when they have been concerned about conditions and about safety in prisons. Yet that has been totally ignored by the Government. I ask that the Government think again on this matter and that hon. Members support amendment No. 281.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made clear, the Opposition are seeking in various ways to weaken the protection that clause 113 provides for the Prison Service against prison officers being induced to withhold their services or commit breaches of discipline. In view of the serious consequences that such behaviour can have, the House will not be surprised to know that I do not accept the

      337
      amendments. The Prison Service is an essential part of the criminal justice system, and events in the service towards the end of last year—
      Mr. Michael: May I come right to the kernel of this issue? There is no argument about the importance of the service, but what will the Minister give to balance those things that he is taking away and, in all fairness, to reward the prison officers?
      Mr. Lloyd: I thought that it was probably a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I will be coming to that point, since he made particular play of it.
      Even the hon. Gentleman will agree that events in the Prison Service towards the end of last year demonstrated how intolerable the effects of disruption can be if key prison staff are involved in industrial action. The action that was planned by the Prison Officers Association for last November would have resulted in some 1,700 prisoners being locked out within only 72 hours. The prisoners would then have had to be placed in police cells, causing disruption to the police, the courts, prisoners, their families and legal advisers. In a short space of time, almost all the available police cell capacity would have been exhausted and the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole seriously impaired.
      Because the prisons and the prison officers who run them are so crucial to the criminal justice system, it is surely wrong for anyone to seek to bring them out on strike or to commit breaches of discipline.
      Mrs. Ewing: Given the Minister's comments just now, is he rewarding the prison officers as a result of that by withdrawing from them their rights as individuals and as trade unionists? Will he also reward them by privatising many of the facilities about which he has spoken?
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady had some debates with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a little earlier. Although I should very much like to follow her down that track, because I believe that we are not privatising but bringing in contracted management to do exactly what the Home Secretary wants in the way of improving prisons, I think that the House would wish me to proceed with the amendments that are under debate. My strong impression in the aftermath of last November's abortive action, and I have visited some 40 prisons, was that many prison officers were relieved that they did not have to choose in the end between the union and what they saw as their duty as prison officers. The Government want good relations with the Prison Officers Association, and we have it in many of our prisons.
      I hope that the national executive will follow the good example of so many of the union branches and agree to start discussions on a range of issues important to prison officers and to the service—not least a fair and effective new mechanism for settling pay.
      11.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was wrong to say that the Bill does not give prison officers anything. Clause 114 permits the establishment of pay determination arrangements negotiated with the POA. It is up to them to take up the invitation to discuss with us what arrangements they would like. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he has the best interests of the Prison Service and its officers in mind—will use his best offices to persuade the NEC to talk to the Prison Service
      338
      management. Many of the branches talk constructively and effectively, and with benefit, to the Prison Service and to the officers and governors.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 113

      INDUCEMENTS TO WITHHOLD SERVICES OR TO INDISCIPLINE
      Amendment proposed: No. 281, in page 85, line 11, after 'discipline', insert
      'otherwise than by an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which the Secretary of State is a party being a Minister falling within section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 290.

      Division No. 206]

      [11.16 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davidson, Ian

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Allen, Graham

      Denham, John

      Alton, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dobson, Frank

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Ashton, Joe

      Dowd, Jim

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Barron, Kevin

      Enright, Derek

      Battle, John

      Etherington, Bill

      Bayley, Hugh

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bell, Stuart

      Faulds, Andrew

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Fisher, Mark

      Benton, Joe

      Flynn, Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Betts, Clive

      Foulkes, George

      Blair, Tony

      Fraser, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Galloway, George

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

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Garrett, John

      Caborn, Richard

      George, Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Cann, Jamie

      Graham, Thomas

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Torn (Monklands W)

      Hall, Mike

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Harvey, Nick

      Coffey, Ann

      Heppell, John

      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

      Cox, Tom

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Hoyle, Doug

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hutton, John

      339

      Illsley, Eric

      Parry, Robert

      Adam, Adam

      Patchett, Terry

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Primarolo Dawn

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jowell, Tessa

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Radice, Giles

      Keen, Alan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Rendel, David

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rogers, Allan

      Lewis, Terry

      Rooker, Jeff

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ruddock, Joan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAllion, John

      Sheerman, Bary

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCartney, Ian

      Short, Clare

      Macdonald, Calum

      Simpson, Alan

      McFall, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

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

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Soley, Clive

      McMaster, Gordon

      Spearing, Nigel

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spellar, John

      McWilliam, John

      Squire, Rachael (Dunfermline W)

      Madden, Max

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mahon, Alice

      Stevenson, George

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stott, Roger

      Marek, Dr John

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Tyler, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Vaz, Keith

      Maxton, John

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Meacher, Michael

      Wallace, James

      Meale, Alan

      Walley, Joan

      Michael, Alun

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Milburn, Alan

      Watson, Mike

      Miller, Andrew

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Morley, Elliot

      Wilson, Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Winnick, David

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wise, Audrey

      Mudie, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Mullin, Chris

      Wray, Jimmy

      Murphy, Paul

      Wright, Dr Tony

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Olner, William

      Mr. Stephen Byers and

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Baldry, Tony

      Amess, David

      Banks, Matthhew (Southport)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bates, Michael

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ashby, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Atkins, Robert

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      340

      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)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowis, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hague, William

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heald, Oliver

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heathcoat-Armory, David

      Cash, William

      Hendry, Charles

      Chapman, Sydney

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Churchill, Mr

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)

      Horam, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Congdon, David

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Gran, James

      Jack, Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Duncan, Alan

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knapman, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Elletson, Harold

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

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Kynoch, Geroge (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

      Faber, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lidington, David

      Fishbum, Dudley

      Lightbown, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Forth, Eric

      Lord, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Macgregor, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Maclean, David

      French, Douglas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gallie, Phil

      Madel, Sir David

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Marland, Paul

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mates, Michael

      341

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Merchant, Piers

      Spring, Richard

      Mills, Iain

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Steen Anthony

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stephen, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stewart, Allan

      Moss, Malcolm

      Streeter, Gary

      Needham, Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sweeney, Walter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sykes, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      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

      Thomton, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thurnham, Peter

      Page, Richard

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

      Paice, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Tredinnick, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Trend, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Trotter, Neville

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Pickles, Eric

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Viggers, Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Walden, George

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      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)

      Whitney, Ray

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sackville, Tom

      Wilkinson, John

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shersby, Michael

      Yeo Tim

      Sims, Roger

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Soames, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Mr. Andrew McKay.

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 217, in page 85, line 39, at end insert—
      '(6A) This section shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of any of the relevant employment legislation whether any trade union is an independent trade union.'.
      No. 218, in page 85, line 40, leave out
      '(within the meaning of section 112 above)'.
      No. 219, in page 85, line 42, at end add—
      '(7A) In this section "the relevant employment legislation" has the same meaning as in section 112 above.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 122

      EXECUTION OF WARRANTS
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 285, in page 92, line 28, after 'taken', insert
      ', as soon as reasonably practicable,'.
      11.30 pm
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 286, 299, 287, 108 to 120, 288, 121, 89, 298, 91, 300, 92 to 96, 289, 97, 98, 290, 99, 100, 291, 348, 301, 101, 102, 305, 306, 302, 303.
      Mr. Trimble: I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall ignore the delay caused by the unnecessary noise that interrupted me. I rise merely to remark on the fact that the amendments are to clauses that provide for cross-border enforcement. I hasten to add that they provide not for the crucial cross-frontier enforcement that should exist but for cross-border enforcement originally drafted between Scotland and England.
      When the clauses were introduced in Committee, we received strong representations from the Royal Ulster Constabulary that they should be extended to Northern Ireland. We passed on those representations to the Government and are delighted to see that the amendments now provide for sensible provisions to enable warrants and other procedures to be enforceable throughout the United Kingdom. It is a welcome measure and I am delighted to see that the Government have followed our advice on the matter.
      Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's thanks for yet another wise move in this Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 286, in page 92, leave out line 38 and insert—
      'by a constable of a police force in Scotland.
      ( ) Any other person within the directions in a warrant executing that warrant under this section shall have the same powers and duties, and the person arrested the same rights, as they would have had if execution had been in the country of issue by the person within those directions.'.
      No. 299, in page 92, line 39, leave out from 'section' to 'applies' in line 40.
      No. 287, in page 92, line 44, after 'committal', insert
      a warrant of detention and return of sentence'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 123

      CROSS-BORDER POWERS OF ARREST ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 108, in page 93, line 9, after 'Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 109, in page 93, line 10, after 'Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 110, in page 93, line 14, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 111, in page 93, line 15, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 112, in page 93, line 17, at end insert—
      '(2A) If the conditions applicable to this subsection are satisfied, any constable of a police force in Northern Ireland who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed or attempted in Northern Ireland and that the suspected person is in England or Wales or in Scotland may arrest without a warrant the suspected person wherever he is in England or Wales or in Scotland.'.
      No. 113, in page 93, line 25, at end insert—
      '(4A) The conditions applicable to subsection (2A) above are—

      (a) that the suspected offence is an arrestable offence; or

      343

      (b) that, in the case of any other offence, it appears to the constable that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate for any of the reasons specified in subsection (3) of section 124.'.

      No. 114, in page 93, line 29, after 'England' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 115, in page 93, line 31, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 116, in page 93, line 35, after 'investigated' insert
      `or to the nearest convenient designated police station in Northern Ireland or to a designated police station in Northern Ireland in which the offence is being investigated'.
      No. 117, in page 93, line 37, after 'station' insert 'in Scotland'.
      No. 118, in page 93, line 39, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 119, in page 93, line 39, at end insert—
      '(d) if he arrested him in Northern Ireland, to take the person arrested either to the nearest convenient designated police staion in England or Wales or to a designated police station in the police area in England and Wales in which the offence is being investigated or to the nearest convenient police station in Scotland or to a police station within the sheriffdom in which the offence is being investigated;
      (e) if he detained him in Northern Ireland, to take the person detained to either such police station in Scotland as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, or to the nearest convenient designated police station in Northern Ireland;'.
      No. 120, in page 93, line 42, after '(1)' insert 'or (2A)'.
      No. 288, in page 93, line 46, leave out 'of search' and insert 'and duties'.
      No. 121, in page 94, line 5, after '1984' insert
      'and, in relation to Northern Ireland, have the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989; and
      "constable of a police force", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 124

      POWERS OF ARREST ETC: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 89, in page 94, line 19, after `(b)' insert 'and (4A)(b)'.
      No. 298, in page 94, line 38, leave out 'the highway' and insert 'a highway or road'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 125

      SEARCH POWERS AVAILABLE ON ARRESTS UNDER SECTIONS 122 AND 123
      Amendments made: No. 91, in page 95, line 20, leave out `(b)' and '(a)'.
      No. 300, in page 96, line 24, at end insert—
      ' "item subject to legal privilege" has the meaning given to it—

      (a) as respects anything in the possession of a person searched in England and Wales, by section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;

      (b) as respects anything in the possession of a person searched in Scotland, by section 40 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;

      (c) as respects anything in the possession of a person searched in Northern Ireland, by Article 12 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989;'.

      No. 92, in page 96, line 35 [Clause 126], after `Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 126

      RECIPROCAL POWERS OF ARRESTS
      Amendments made: No. 93, in page 96, line 37, after `Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 94, in page 97, line 3, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 95, in page 97, line 5, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 96, in page 97, line 9, at end insert—
      '(5) Where a constable of a police force in Northern Ireland would, in relation to an offence, have power to arrest a person in Northern Ireland under Article 26(6) or (7) or 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (arrestable offences and non-arrestable offences in certain circumstances) a constable of a police force in England and Wales or Scotland shall have the like power of arrest in Northern Ireland.
      (6) Where a constable of a police force in England and Wales or in Scotland arrests a person in Northern Ireland by virtue of subsection (5) above—

      (a) the constable shall be subject to requirements to inform the arrested person that he is under arrest and of the grounds for it corresponding to the requirements imposed by Article 30 of that Order;

      (b) the constable shall be subject to a requirement to take the arrested person to a police station corresponding to the requirement imposed by Article 32 of that Order and so as respects the other related requirements of that Article; and

      (c) the constable shall have powers to search the arrested person corresponding to the powers conferred by Article 34 of that Order.

      (7) In this section "constable of a police force", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 127

      AID OF ONE POLICE FORCE BY ANOTHER
      Amendments made: No. 289, in page 97, line 11, leave out 'of police'.
      No. 97, in page 97, line 12, after 'Scotland' insert
      'or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 98, in page 97, line 13, after 'force' insert 'or the Royal Ulster Constabulary'.
      No. 290, in page 97, line 14, leave out 'of police'. No. 99, in page 97, line 16, after 'Wales' insert
      'or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 100, in page 97, line 17, after 'force' insert 'or the Royal Ulster Constabulary'.
      No. 291, in page 97, line 24, leave out 'of police'. No. 348, in page 97, line 30, after 'force', insert
      '(or, where that other force is a police force in Scotland or the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, of its chief officer or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary respectively)'.
      No. 301, in page 97, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 50.
      No. 101, in page 98, line 2, after '1967' insert
      `or the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970'.
      No. 102, in page 98, line 2, leave out from 'Wales' to
      'respectively' in line 3 and insert Scotland and Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 128

      POWER TO TEST PRISONERS FOR DRUGS
      Amendments made: No. 147, in page 99, leave out lines 7 to 11.
      No. 148, in page 99, leave out lines 15 to 18.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 130
      PROHIBITED ARTICLES IN SCOTTISH PRISONS
      Amendment made: No. 149, in page 102, line 43. leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 131

      AGE AT WHICH HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL
      Amendment proposed: No. 35, in 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".'.—[Ms Hoey.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 141.

      Division No. 207]

      [11.34 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Conway, Derek

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cook. Robin (Livingstone)

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Alexander, Richard

      Cousins, Jim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cox, Tim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Ashby, David

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Darling, Alistair

      Barnes, Harry

      Davidson, Ian

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Battle, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Denham, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Delvin, Tim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dewar, Donald

      Betts, Clive

      Donohoe, Briah H.

      Blair, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boateng, Paul

      Dowd, Jim

      Booth, Hartley

      Duncan, Alan

      Boswell, Tim

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowden, Andrew

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Bowls, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Bradley, Keith

      Elletson, Harold

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Etherington, Bill

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Forth, Eric

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burns, Simon

      Foulkes, Geroge

      Byers, Stephen

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Cann, Jamie

      Galloway, Geroge

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Carrington, Matthew

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gorden, Mildred

      Clapham, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Gunnell, John

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hague, William

      Coffey, Ann

      Hain, Peter

      Congdon, David

      Hall, Mike

      Connarty, Michael

      Hampson, Dr keith

      346

      Hannam, Sir John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Harris, David

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hayes, Jerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Hendry, Charles

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Heppell, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Murphy, Paul

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Needham, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Home Robertson, John

      Norris, Steve

      Hood, Jimmy

      O, Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

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

      Olner, William

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hoyle, Doug

      Page, Richard

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pope, Greg

      Hutton, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Ingram, Adam

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jack, Michael

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

      Rendel, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jamieson, David

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Key, Robert

      Short, Clare

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Simpson, Alan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Skinner, Dennis

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

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

      Knox, Sir David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Soley, Clive

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lewis, Terry

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Steel, Rt Hon Sie David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stott, Roger

      Loyden, Eddie

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McAllion, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Thurnham, Peter

      McCartney, Ian

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

      McFall, John

      Tredinnick, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      MacKay, Andrew

      Vaz, Keith

      McKelvey, William

      Wallace, James

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Waller, Gary

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Watson, Mike

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Madden, Max

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Mahon, Alice

      Wilshire, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Wise, Audrery

      Mandelson, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Marek, Dr John

      Worthington, Tony

      Martlew, Eric

      Wray, Jimmy

      Maxton, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Meale, Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Mr. Peter Bottomley and

      Milburn, Alan

      Ms Kate Hoey.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Amess, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Arbuthnot, James

      Atkins, Robert

      347

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lord, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Luff, Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Maclean, David

      Bates, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Beggs, Roy

      Marland, Paul

      Bellingham, Henry

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Merchant, Piers

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Millis, Iain

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Brazier, Julian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Bright, Graham

      Moss, Malcolm

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Cash, William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Paice, James

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Patnick, Irvine

      Colvin, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Portor, Barry (Wirral S)

      Cran, James

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Davis, David (Booth ferry)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Dover, Den

      Robathan, Andrew

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Sackville, Tom

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Evennett, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles, (Pudsey)

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Forman, Nigel

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Sproat, Iain

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Steen, Anthony

      French, Douglas

      Stewart, Allan

      Gale, Roger

      Streeter, Gary

      Gallie, Phil

      Sweeney, Walter

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Sykes, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Taylor, Sir Teedy (Southend, E)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Thomason, Roy

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Thomason, Patrick Norwich N)

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Tracey, Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Trend, Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Trimble, David

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Trotter, Neville

      Hawksley, Warren

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Viggers, Peter

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast)

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hunter, Andrew

      Watts, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Wells, Bowen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Whitney, Ray

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Wilkinson, John

      Knapman, Roger

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Winterton, Nicholas Macc'fld)

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

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Mr. William Ross and

      Leigh, Edward

      Rev. Martin Smyth.

      Lightbown, David

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 343, in page 103, leave out line 20.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 132

      INCREASE IN CERTAIN PENALTIES
      Amendment made: No. 42, in page 104, line 9, at end insert—
      348
      '(5A) Article 17 of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (power of Secretary of State by order to alter sums specified in certain provisions of the law of Northern Ireland) shall have effect with the insertion, in paragraph (2), after sub-paragraph (j) of the following sub-paragraph—
      "(k) column 5 or 6 of Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 so far as the column in question relates to the offences under provisions of that Act specified in column 1 of that Schedule in respect of which the maximum fines were increased by Part II of Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994…" '—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 133

      EXTRADITION PROCEDURES
      Amendments made: No. 189, in page 104, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert 'The Extradition Act 1989'.
      No. 361, in page 104, line 14, at end insert—
      `( ) In section 4 (extradition Orders), in subsection (4), for the words "warrant his trial if" there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by that person if the proceedings were a summary trial of an information against him and",'.
      No. 362, in page 105, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—
      '(4) In section 9 (committal proceedings)—

      (a) in subsection (2), for the words from "jurisdiction" to the end there shall be substituted the words "powers, including powers to adjourn the case and meanwhile to remand the person arrested under the warrant either in custody or on bail, as if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him"; and

      (b) in subsection (8)(a), for the words from "warrant his trial" to the end, there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by that person if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him;".

      (5) In Schedule 1 (provisions applying to foreign states in respect of which an Order in Council under section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 is in force)—

      (a) in paragraph 6(1) (hearing of case), for the words from "hear the case" to the end there shall be substituted the words "have the same powers, as near as may be, including power to adjourn the case and meanwhile to remand the prisoner either in custody or on bail, as if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him for an offence committed in England and Wales."; and

      (b) in paragraph 7(1) (committal or discharge of prisoner), for the words from "justify the committal" to "England or Wales" there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by the prisoner if the proceedings were for the trial in England and Wales of an information for the crime,…" '[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 134

      BACKING OF WARRANTS—REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
      Amendment made: No. 363, in page 105, line 23, leave out from 'from' to end of line 29 and insert—
      "'and the proceedings" to the end, there shall be substituted the words "as if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against that person.".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 137

      SALE OF TICKETS FOR DESIGNATED FOOTBALL MATCHES BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 108, line 35, leave out from second 'a' to end of line 36 and insert

      349
      `Sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 179 and 180.
      Amendment No. 127, in page 108, line 39, leave out `match' and insert 'event'.
      Amendment No. 128, in page 108, line 40, leave out `match;' and insert 'event; and'.
      Amendment No. 129, in page 108, line 41, leave out from second 'ticket' to end of line 46.
      Government amendment No. 181.
      Amendment No. 130, in page 109, line 5, leave out `designated football matches' and insert 'sporting events.'
      Mr. Pendry: The purpose of amendment No. 126 is to extend the legislation to cover not only football matches but all sporting events that sell more than 6,000 tickets. It does not go as far as the amendment moved in Committee, which the Government—for reasons best known to them—did not support. However, it specifically addresses an area of increasing criminality.
      Crime prevention should be a high priority for the Government, with worrying trends being seen in society and particularly in ticket touting. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. This is more a sporting than a political lobby. The Minister will see that the amendment's supporters include not only sporting institutions but hon. Members on both sides of the House—including the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), and hon. Members representing the interests of the Police Federation.
      The House may wonder why we pitched the ticket issue figure at 6,000. That is partly because we have no intention of restricting the measure to small events, such as those held on the local village green, where the menace of touting does not arise. A figure of 6,000 ticket sales will cover No. 1 court and the centre court at Wimbledon. It is of particular concern to that sport, because there is much evidence that significant criminal elements are hijacking the smooth running of the championships. Our information is that activities of ticket touts are now a major and growing criminal problem.
      We recognise—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want me to go on and on, I shall give way to as many of them as they like, but I will go on and then keep quiet, because my Whip tells me to.
      We recognise that no two sports are the same, and the problems associated with football do not necessarily relate to other sporting events, but there is now one common element to all major sporting events such as cricket, football, rugby, tennis, golf and so on—the potential that they offer to the criminal element who tout tickets. I intend to highlight some of those problems.
      Suffice to say, I have had letters of support from various bodies, including the Professional Golfers Association, the Rugby Football Union, the Football Association, the Test and County Cricket Board and Lord's cricket ground as well—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on.
      Mr. John Carlisle rose—
      Mr. Pendry: I will not have any help from the hon. Gentleman. I have had it before, and do not particularly like it. As I said, I have received letters from various organisations. The hon. Gentleman is a member of Lord's, so he should be listening carefully to what I am saying.
      The actions of the criminal element now regularly include fraud, theft, deception, intimidation, forgery and, in some circumstances, activities of a very serious criminal nature, such as gang and Mafia-type operations.
      In Committee, the Minister stated that it was the public order consequences of touting that worried him. The advice from all sides—the customer, the organiser and, indeed, the Police Federation—is that there is a serious problem with events other than football. If the Government reject the amendment, they will fly in the face of all known opinion on the subject.
      The sporting bodies that I listed believe that legislation is necessary. Wimbledon has become so frustrated at the touting problem that it has introduced its own attempts at self-policing. That concern took many forms, but, principally, it was worried about the increasing use of strong-arm tactics, theft and forgery of tickets, as well as the bad image that such a presence was giving to the tournament. Wimbledon tickets now state that they are non-transferable and may be bought only from the club or its licensed agents. The unauthorised sale or transfer of those tickets immediately invalidates them. That means that the actions of the touts is nothing less than criminal deception. When they sell on a ticket, it is worthless.
      Sadly, that has led to misery for hundreds of customers who, having spent a fortune on tickets from touts, are refused entry at the doors of the ground. While sporting events such as Wimbledon are now much more protected by those regulations, their potential customers are not. Cases highlighted to me by Wimbledon include one where five individuals paid £2,500 for an unofficial corporate package in which the tickets were invalid. Another was of a German executive who paid £50,000 for what he believed was a corporate package of 35 centre court tickets, only to find on arrival that they were invalid because they had broken the transfer rules.
      The Minister may take the view that that is the fault of the person buying the ticket. Yet, in many cases, the buyer has been misinformed by the tout and has little comprehension or awareness of ticket regulations and, in some cases, even of the language.
      All the major sporting bodies report having to undertake intensive operations in the mailing of their tickets to prevent theft by post. I do not wish to go on, although I could. But the Government are foolish indeed if they ignore all those sporting bodies. The 14th Earl of Derby would be turning in his grave if he knew that the Government were ignoring these institutions in our society. The Government must recognise that this is a criminal justice Bill, not just a public order Bill. The criminality elements contained in ticket touting are manifest. If the Government do not recognise that today, they will do so very soon because the institutions to which I have referred will not keep quiet but will intensify their lobbying of us and of the Government. I hope that the Government will eventually recognise that—if not now, in the very near future.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The original clause appears in the Bill as a result of Lord Justice Taylor's report following the Hillsborough disaster. The

      351
      clause was designed to try to alleviate circumstances that might give rise to danger for people attending football matches.
      It is clear from what has been said by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and from a large volume of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that ticket touting has an effect on sporting events beyond simply creating circumstances in which there might be a risk for those who wish to attend as spectators. As has already been pointed out, there is now convincing evidence of organised criminal behaviour. The notion of the ticket tout as a friendly Flashman-type figure has long since been removed from the consciousness of those who have made any study of the matter. Consequently, the amendments are intended to bring home as graphically as possible the fact that ticket touting is a serious criminal matter.
      Quite apart from that, ticket touting stains the reputation of the United Kingdom and of particular sporting events. Some of the stories from the west end theatre world about ticket touting and the extent to which tourists have been deceived make it perfectly plain that it is does very little for the reputation of London or for that of the United Kingdom as a whole. We are not dealing with the theatre now, but the same principles apply to sporting events.
      The sporting authorities at Wimbledon, the rugby unions and other sporting organisations have done their best and changed the terms on which tickets are made available to members of the public by introducing their own schemes deliberately designed to try to thwart the efforts of ticket touts. It is perfectly clear that there is a substantial problem beyond football. The amendments are designed to deal with that problem and, on that footing, I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, but this is a long-standing problem which has been brought to the House's attention many times. It is really a trade and industry problem in the sense that it is very difficult to control the price of a second-hand article, whether it is a car, a house, a painting or a ticket. I do not agree with it, but I accept the argument that there is a market value for a product and that one cannot distort the market.
      I am glad that the Minister has accepted some amendments relating to football, but there is a further problem involving danger. At football grounds, supporters are segregated—each lot of supporters goes to a different end of the ground to prevent the punch-ups, violence and disturbances that we witnessed throughout the 1970s. Ticket touts often gain a large number of tickets for one end of a ground and sell them indiscriminately. There have been allegations about football managers, but I shall not mention the manager who has been accused on television of selling 2,000 of his team's supporters' tickets indiscriminately on the black market, thus causing 2,000 spectators at Wembley to be at the wrong end of the ground. If there is a dispute over a controversial goal, it is clear that aggravation and violence are likely. That is why we prevailed on the Minister.
      I am glad that the Minister has accepted the advice of the Football Association and, apart from banning the sale of tickets on the day of the event, has graciously agreed to ban the sale for seven days beforehand. If a team gets to a
      352
      cup final and tickets are sold in the pubs in the preceding seven days, there is often a tiny oasis of spectators at the wrong end of the ground who are surrounded. It can become like the battle of the Alamo or Custer's last stand, and the spectators feel that they have to fight their way out.
      When there was standing at football grounds those spectators could be escorted to the front of the ground, taken round to the other end and told to stand anywhere. They could be absorbed, and the violence could be prevented. But with the all-seater stadiums that Government regulations insist on, there is nowhere to put them now. There are no spare seats at the other end of the ground and people have to remain in the original seats. Women and children are often surrounded by thugs who may be semi-drunk, and use bad language and threatening behaviour. The thugs create all sorts of problems for the police and the stewards when the video cameras pick them out.
      12 midnight
      That is one reason why I am glad that the Home Office has accepted the Football Association's advice that the issue is one of public order and of preventing disturbance. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, at Wimbledon and other sporting events and at pop concerts the difference is that everyone is on the same side. At Wimbledon there are not two sides who will have a punch-up if someone's favourite loses the match. There is no such problem at pop concerts, or at the Derby and other horse races.
      Although I am against touts making a profit out of those events, at least one can say that the market economy can prevail there. I am glad that the Minister of State has accepted the argument on violence at football matches—an argument that does not apply to Twickenham or other such places.
      Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I must tell the Minister that I cannot understand the logic of looking at the issue entirely in terms of football. I realise that there is a problem with violence at football matches, but the question is whether ticket touting in itself is an offence that should be considered, and whether it has the potential for causing disorder in other sports.
      I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the matter in the wider context. I have had representations from the cricket authorities suggesting that touting is a potential problem for them, too. As an attender of cricket matches I know that it is offensive, for example, if one is going to a match at Lord's, to walk out of St. John's Wood station and have to go through a channel of people touting tickets. If that is not now a serious offence, it will be a serious problem in future.
      We should not consider the matter in a blinkered fashion, as a problem affecting football alone. Sad though it may be to say so, it could be a wider problem. My hon. Friend would do the House a service if he undertook to reconsider before the statute is finally determined whether the problem is exclusive to football. I suspect that it is not.
      Mr. Sebastian Coe: I do not wish to labour some of the arguments about law and order which have already been articulately expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I shall dwell for a few moments on a couple of issues that I consider germane to the debate.

      353
      When I left the Sports Council in 1989, I was convinced that our sporting future—our ability to produce winning teams and to maintain the ethos of competitive teams—was bound up with people's ability to watch sport at the highest level. There are sophisticated and sensitive arguments about excellence and participation, and sensitive balances have to be struck, but in my mind there is no doubt that youngsters' ability to emulate competitors and role models on the sports field, through having reasonable access to sporting events of the highest nature, is a vital part of that.
      Ordinary constituents of mine who hope one day to get to a test match, a Wimbledon final or—with a little bit of luck—an FA cup final, think little of sleeping rough for a day and a half or two days outside a stadium to get a ticket. A moral issue arises when a ticket tout can sell a ticket that should have been destined for one of those people to someone who simply turns up on the day of an event with a few hundred pounds in his pocket. That is wrong. Clearly, the morality of that should be questioned on both sides of the House.
      It is increasingly difficult for ordinary fans to get into most events, with a plethora of sponsorship boxes. I do not wish the difficulty to be added to by ticket touts cornering the market. I know that the argument will be that this is not a law and order issue and that it is not an issue on which we should regulate. We are committed to improving and enhancing our national sport. We are committed to doing so by the enhancement of competitive sport. These are issues of participation, and participation depends greatly on excellence. Excellence comes from people's ability to watch sport at the highest level. Ticket touting sits uneasily with our determination to develop competitive sport. It also sits uneasily with our need to develop "The Health of the Nation" policies. I wish to—
      Dr. Godman: Conclude.
      Mr. Coe: I wish to support the amendment—yes, and to conclude. I hope that the Government are able to look afresh at the matter and at least to reconsider some of the issues.
      Mr. Maclean: There has been support for clause 137 from most hon. Members. The main criticism has been that
      the Government's original proposals were drawn too narrowly. I undertook to reflect following the debate in Committee. I have done so and I am now pleased to commend Government amendments Nos. 179 and 181 to the House. I appreciate the kind welcome given to them by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), whose wise words I commend to all hon. Members.
      Amendments Nos. 126 to 130 seek to go much further and to widen the offence of the unauthorised sale of a ticket for a designated football match to all sporting events for which more than 6,000 tickets are issued. The Government do not believe that that is necessary.
      As I said, the original clause 112 was intended to implement the specific recommendation of the Taylor report after the Hillsborough stadium disaster that the touting of tickets for and on the day of a designated football match should be made illegal. Taylor adduced two evils which arose. First, the presence of touts outside football grounds can act as a focus for disorder, as those without tickets are encouraged to travel to the venue in the hope of obtaining them, with the result that an unofficial, unruly rugby scrum sometimes develops. Secondly, Taylor was
      354
      concerned about the effect of the indiscriminate sale of tickets by touts on segregation arrangements, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw pointed out. In other words, action was necessary on football ticket touts for reasons of public order and public safety only.
      In the cases quoted by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), if people were selling forged or fraudulent tickets, or tickets that did not guarantee the seat that they were alleged to guarantee, existing criminal law would cover that. Existing offences of fraud cover those
      situations.
      With all due respect to many great sporting organisations, I believe that they should police their own arrangements better. It is possible to follow the excellent example of Arsenal football club whose tickets are invalidated if they are transferred, by whatever devious means, to others who, perhaps, should not have them. We must ask ourselves this question: do we intend to bring in the criminal law and make it a criminal offence for someone, when there is no question of disorder or violence, to sell tickets for Wimbledon or other sporting events at more than their face value? Where is the really bad or immoral behaviour? Is it found in those who are selling the tickets, or in those who acquired them to pass them on to the touts in the first place? I say to sporting organisations that if they do not want touts selling tickets, they should control their own tickets more strictly.
      The unauthorised sale of tickets for football matches presents a problem to public order and public safety, as we all agree. We see little evidence of public disorder or lack of safety in other sports. If, in due course, there is rioting at the ice dance championships or public disorder at the synchronised swimming events, I shall consider legislating in those cases only. At the moment, we see no such need, so I must, therefore, oppose the Opposition amendments.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 269.

      Division No. 208]

      [12.09

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ainger, Nick

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Darling, Alistair

      Alton, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Austin-Walker, John

      Day, Stephen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dewar, Donald

      Beggs, Roy

      Dixon, Don

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Enright, Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Etherington, Bill

      Blair, Tony

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bradley, Keith

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

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

      Foulkes, George

      Burden, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Galloway, George

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cattle, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clapham, Michael

      Graham, Thomas

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hain, Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Hall, Mike

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hanson, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cox, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      355

      Hoey, Kate

      Milburn, Alan

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Miller, Andrew

      Home Robertson, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Hutton, John

      Olner, William

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Neill, Martin

      Ingram, Adam

      Patchett, Terry

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rendel, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ruddock, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sedgmore, Brian

      McCartney, Ian

      Simpson, Alan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

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

      McKelvey, William

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McWilliam, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Wallace, James

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Watson, Mike

      Mahon, Alice

      Welsh, Andrew

      Marek, Dr John

      Wilson, Brian

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wise, Audrey

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Worthington, Tony

      Martlew, Eric

      Wray, Jimmy

      Maxton, John

      Meale, Alan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michael, Alun

      Mr. Harry Barnes and

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brown, M. Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Alexander, Richard

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashby, David

      Cartiss, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Cash, William

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Churchill, Mr

      Atkins, Robert

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clark, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Congdon, David

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Conway, Derek

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bates, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Couchman, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cran, James

      Bendall, Vivian

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

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Blackbum, Dr John G.

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Booth, Hartley

      Delvlin, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      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

      356

      Elletson, Harold

      Lidington, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Luff, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Faber, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mackay, Andrew

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Maclean, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fishbum, Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Madel, Sir David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forth, Eric

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marland, Paul

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gale, Roger

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mates, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Garnier, Edward

      Merchant, Piers

      Gill, Christopher

      Mills, Iain

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Monro, Sir Roger

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hague, William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Harris, David

      Norris, Steve

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hawkins, Nick

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawksley, Warren

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Page, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Paice, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hendry, Charles

      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)

      Hordem, 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, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jack, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marionh (Broxbourne)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sims, Roger

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Soames, Nicholas

      Knapman, Roger

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Spink, Dr Robert

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

      Spring, Richard

      Knox, Sir David

      Sproat, Iain

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Steen Anthony

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Stephen, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Stewart, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Streeter, Gary

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Sumberg, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sweeney, Walter

      357

      Sykes, John

      Wardel, Charles (Bexhill)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Watts, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Thomason, Roy

      Whitney, Ray

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Whittingdale, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thumham, Peter

      Wilkison, John

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

      Willetts, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilshire, David

      Trend, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trotter, Neville

      Wolfson, Mark

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Yeo, Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Viggers, Peter

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walden, George

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Mr. Tim Wood.

      Waller, Gary

      Amendment accordingly negatived.

    Clause 137

      SALE OF TICKETS FOR DESIGNATED FOOTBALL MATCHES BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS.
      Amendments made: No. 179, in page 108, line 35, leave out from 'match' to 'in' in line 36.
      No. 180, in page 108, line 36, at end insert
      'or, in the course of a trade or business, in any other place'.
      No. 181, in page 108, line 42, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 43.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 139

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE GRANTS IN RELATION TO CRIME PREVENTION, ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 58, in page 109, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'as' and insert—

      (a) make such payments, or

      (b) pay such grants, to such persons,'.

      No. 59, in page 109, line 27, leave out 'such grant' and insert
      'grant under subsection (1)(b) above'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 140

      SECURITY COSTS AT PARTY CONFERENCES.
      Mrs. Diana Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 109, line 33, after 'a' insert
      'Police Authority, or by a'.
      This is a very straightforward amendment. It allows the Government to ensure that the now regrettably escalating costs of funding security at party conferences do not fall on the council tax payers in the counties hosting the conferences. The current arrangements hit local taxpayers particularly hard in those few areas that have been chosen as the main venues for the party conferences of our main political parties. The towns are Brighton, Blackpool and Bournemouth in Lancashire, East Sussex and my own county of Dorset.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Would the hon. Lady care to explain which are the two parties that meet in those venues?
      Mrs. Maddock: We are going to Brighton this year. We have been in Bournemouth in other years. The point is the cost, whoever goes there. It does not matter which party it is.
      There is no doubt that since the tragic bombing of the Grand hotel in Brighton in 1984 a number of heavy security costs, especially to do with searching and the extra manpower in the streets surrounding the conference centres, are now incurred not only by the political parties but by the police authorities in the counties that I have mentioned. In my own county of Dorset, the chief constable estimates that the cost of policing and security at this year's Tory party conference in Bournemouth will be £2.6 million.
      Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Lady confirm that if Bournemouth does not want to hold the Tory party conference, it need not do so? It can be held elsewhere. The fact that it is being held there means that it should be of some commercial benefit to the town.
      Mrs. Maddock: If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will have an answer to his point.
      In a letter to me the chief constable says:
      "This large amount of expenditure in one financial year means that the force must create a reserve by annual contribution to pay for this severe drain on our financial resources."
      It means that every year in Dorset there is less money to spend on general policing in the county, less for crime prevention measures, less for police patrols and less for solving crimes and catching criminals.
      At conference times, there is an additional drain on Dorset police's human resources, with officers necessarily drafted in from elsewhere in the county to patrol around the Bournemouth international centre.
      That is extremely bad news for the people of Dorset, because between 1979 and 1992 there has been a 78 per cent. increase in motor vehicle thefts and a 171 per cent. increase in the number of domestic burglaries. In the past year alone, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in serious crime in the county.
      All police forces have occasional major incidents, and the mass murder inquiry that is under way in Gloucestershire is a current example. However, few have regular drains on their resources. Dorset, East Sussex and Lancashire do. I have heard that there is a strong possibility that the Tory party conference will soon start coming to Bournemouth every other year. I can understand that. Bournemouth is a congenial place—Christchurch is, too, of course—with a beautiful setting, excellent accommodation and an excellent modem conference centre. In answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), Dorset people welcome conferences with open arms, but they do not welcome the extra cost falling on all of them for something which is part of our national political scene.
      Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Lady will recall that the Liberal Democrats have held many conferences in Harrogate. Would she like to have a whip round among her hon. Friends to reimburse us for the cost of policing those conferences?
      Mrs. Maddock: If the Government are generous enough to pass the amendment, all people will have the benefit. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Liberal Democrats do not cost so much when they have party conferences. We are much better value for money.

      359
      My fellow Dorset Members of Parliament believe that the cost should be born nationally, and they have endeavoured to persuade the Government. They have liaised with East Sussex and Lancashire, and the new Liberal Democrat administration on Dorset county council has, through its deputy leader Robin Legg, also tried to further the cause. I understand that members of the Lancashire police authority had a meeting with the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, in December and they have asked for a further meeting with the Home Secretary for representatives from the three counties affected.
      In 1986, the Government recognised that political parties should not have to bear all the costs that they incur in providing security at conferences, and that they should be reimbursed from the national public purse. Since that time, payments have been made under the authority of the Appropriation Act. Only with the clause that my colleagues and I are seeking to amend will this at last be put on a statutory footing.
      There can be no better time than now to deal with the unfairness of distribution of local police authority costs. I appreciate that the Government are responsible for 51 per cent. of police spending, and that additional grants from the Government to local authorities make up some of the other 49 per cent. However, the grants and formulas under which they are calculated do not specifically take account of the additional burden of funding the policing of party conferences.
      The standard spending assessments, capping limits and
      360
      grants ignore what is a significant part of the police budget for the areas affected. Party conferences have a special place in our democracy—those words were used by Margaret Thatcher—and I am sure that we all believe that they must be allowed to take place. Likewise, none of us would argue that conference-goers and people involved in running conference should go unprotected. I believe, as do many hon. Members and members of local police authorities, that the source of funding should reflect the national nature and importance of party conferences and not fall unfairly on the people who live in the areas that attract large conferences.
      This is a fair amendment; it is common sense to make it at this time and it would welcomed by those police authorities which are affected. They would get the extra resources that they need to protect party conferences and would be allowed to keep their existing resources to tackle rising crime.
      Mr. Maclean: From time to time, every police force has to cope with demands which are not routine and most forces can claim to have responsibilities with strong national implications comparable with those carried by forces involved in policing party conferences.
      12.30am
      We regularly review the funding arrangements, but to date it has not been considered right to single out policing costs arising from party conferences for additional central Government funding. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 141
      EXPENSES ETC UNDER ACT
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 110, line 8 after 'sections', insert '2, —[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 142

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 344, in page 110, line 17, leave out from beginning to 'this' in line 18 and insert
      'With the exception of section 72 and, subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
      No. 41, in page 110, line 18, leave out 'Chapter' and insert
      'Chapters I and'. No. 345, in page 110, line 19, after 'State' insert
      'or, in the case of sections 43 and 44, the Lord Chancellor'.
      No. 346, in page 110, line 25, at end inser—
      '(3A) The following provisions and their related amendments and repeals shall come into force on the passing of this Act, namely sections 5 to 15 (and Schedules 1 and 2), 51, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67 to 70, 71, 73, Chapters I and IV of Part VIII, 131, 133(1) to (3), 137, 141 and this section.
      (3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A) above—

      (a) the following are the amendments related to the provisions specified in that subsection, namely, in Schedule 10, paragraphs 35 and 38(1), (3), (4) and (5);

      (b) the repeals related to the provisions specified in that subsection are those specified in the Note at the end of Schedule 11.'

      No. 176, in page 110, line 26, at beginning insert
      'Except as regards any provisions applied under section (Power to apply sections 29 to 33 to armed forces) and'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 110, line 29, leave out '58, 59,'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 25, in page 110, line 29, leave out '60, 61,'.
      Government amendment No. 80.
      Amendment No. 22, in page 110, line 33, at end insert
      '(7A) Sections 58 and 59 do not extend to Wales'.
      Mr. McFall: The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), last night mentioned when he rejected new clause 22 on badger digging that it was normal for people to go about: the countryside with shovels—that is a matter of public record. In Scotland, people who go about the countryside in hill-walking gear may find themselves contravening the law because the Government have, for the first lime, brought the criminal law to bear on such a situation there. That is very worrying for many people in Scotland.
      I and other right hon. and hon. Friends have been contacted by 115 organisations that are fearful for the consequences. The law creates the offence of aggravated trespass. In the opinion of many people in Scotland the law is unnecessary—it is vague and will be subject to various interpretations. The Law Society, for example, stated when it contacted me about the matter that the case has not been made for the need to legislate in that area. In that society's view the law of breach of the peace would satisfactorily cover the intimidation of persons carrying out a lawful activity.
      Why have the Government brought such activities within the law? So far as I am aware, the provision was not intended to apply to Scotland, but the Secretary of State received a letter on 29 October 1993 from a farmer in the
      362
      Borders—a certain Mr. Peter Straker-Smith—complaining about disruption of his grouse shooting. As a result, the Secretary of State decided to introduce this catch-all amendment, which will be very bad for the law in Scotland. The provisions in respect of obstruction or disruption of lawful activity are unduly vague and could lead to innocent or lawful behaviour which obstructs or disrupts other lawful activity being subject to the offences provisions. Ramblers, hill walkers and other recreational users are not excluded from the provisions of the clause.
      Here, one of the main proponents has been the Scottish Landowners Federation which, it is stated, is fully behind this law. I have here a letter dated 22 March 1994 from Duncan Thompson, who is the legal adviser to the Scottish Landowners Federation. Mr. Thompson stated that the organisation's view is that there is a specific public order problem which must be addressed—the deliberate disruption of field sports—and which is not adequately dealt with under the existing law. The federation's legal adviser goes on to say that it would have no objection to an amendment to narrow the focus of the clause to the specific mischief to be targeted.
      Why has the Secretary of State incorporated in the Bill a catch-all provision when no one—absolutely no one, and certainly not the Scottish Landowners Federation—in Scotland is asking for it? Why is the clause necessary? What is the mischief that the Government intend to prevent? And what are the lawful activities to which the clause refers? Can the Minister explain the difference, in Scotland, between a breach of the peace and intimidation, as dealt with in clauses 58 and 59? What constitutes obstruction and disruption? Are these tests not subjective rather than objective? One person may be more disruptable than another.
      Have the Government really considered the implications for Scotland of the results of this legislation? Will it, for example, be disruption if a party of school children on a nature lesson disturbs a shepherd during lambing? Will it be disruption if an environmental group seeks, through peaceful protest, to prevent environmental damage?
      In a letter to George Cubitt, the chairman of the outdoor pursuits division of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Home Secretary's private secretary, Miss Vikki Molloy, stated that the police and the courts are very familiar with the concept of intent and that the problem of misinterpretation should not, therefore, arise. In fact, the police in Scotland are not very familiar with that concept. Because of the vagueness of the catch-all phrase, they are very fearful about the introduction of the provision in Scotland. It will undermine the long-established freedom to roam in uncultivated areas of mountain and moorland in Scotland. As some 100,000 walkers and climbers use the highlands during summer weekends it will pose a danger to many people enjoying the countryside.
      The provision also makes nonsense of a review currently being undertaken by the Government's own body, Scottish Natural Heritage. I refer to the review of access to the outdoors. What are the opinions of Scottish Natural Heritage? I wrote to the organisation about this matter and the chief executive, Roger Cross, stated in a very sensitive way that what Scottish Natural Heritage does not want is that the understanding that has been built up between hill walkers and landowners should be disrupted. There is no doubt that the understanding, sensitivity and equilibrium that have been achieved will be disrupted.

      363
      What does Scottish Natural Heritage say? Why have the Government gone ahead when that organisation is currently conducting its review of access? Out of the blue, trespass is to be criminalised. I am informed that the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, Magnus Magnusson, has written privately to the Secretary of State. Mr. Magnusson is worried about the fact that voluntary co-operation between landowners and sports bodies in respect of land use could be seriously undermined.
      There is a problem in respect of loch Lomond, which is in my constituency. Month after month and year after year, I have been telling the Scottish Office that something other than the voluntary principle is needed. The Government have stood by the voluntary principle in relation to loch Lomond. Yet here we find the voluntary principle possibly being undermined by the introduction of this unnecessary clause.
      Those laws, according to the Law Society of Scotland and others, could be far more oppressive than Ministers intended. The Scottish Landowners Federation does not want the unspecific wording. In his address to the annual general meeting on 8 March, the convenor of the federation, Mr. Disney Barlow, stated that the
      "essence of the new offence will be criminal intention to intimidate, disrupt or obstruct. Those are not the intentions of ramblers or of any reasonable people, and reasonable people are not going to be affected".
      But any lawyer will confirm that it is extremely hard to define in law a "reasonable" action or person. The legal adviser has already recognised that reasonable people will be affected, so landowners are aware of the concerns.
      If the Minister or the Secretary of State had reassured the Scottish people, that would have been fine, but not a word has been uttered and I am afraid that the Scottish public are convinced that the Home Secretary is legislating for England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland at the very last minute is applying the clauses to Scotland for a problem that does not exist there. The case for legislation has not been made. We have adequate mechanisms now with regard to breach of the peace. The civil law has operated in Scotland since 1965 under the Trespass Act of that date.
      I draw the Minister's attention to an interesting story in The Scotsman last Friday about trespass. Every voluntary organisation and reasonable landowner will confirm that, because of the understanding that has developed over the years, a balance between access and landowners' rights has been achieved in Scotland. The story relates to two individuals who were found guilty at Dingwall sheriff court of trespass under the 1965 Act. It happened because the landowner sent instructions by fax from southern Africa that they were to be prosecuted. Foreign landowners are insensitive to the position in Scotland. They can fax messages from all over the world and their instructions are then carried out. The understanding that exists in Scotland then goes for a burton because of the wishes of some absent landlord, whether he be in South Africa, Rio or anywhere else. That is what will happen in Scotland. It is fine having a responsible landowner in Scotland, but the chances of having a responsible landowner in South Africa commuting his message by high tech will be far less.
      The clause could apply to one's own back yard. We are not just talking about the grouse moor; we could be talking about young people who kick their football into someone's
      364
      garden and go in to retrieve it. How could that be considered aggressive trespass? According to some people, it could be. If we have a latterday Miss Haversham whose solitude, peace and quiet is being disturbed, we shall have that offence. That is absurd. How much torpor must exist in the Scottish Office for Ministers to think for one minute of introducing such an inappropriate clause in the Bill. Just as equity is as long or as short as the Lord Chancellor's foot, the concepts of obstruction and disruption are as long or as short as the landowner's foot.
      12.45 am
      That is the type of uncertainty that has been introduced into the law of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is law that may lead to confrontation with which the forces of law and order will be ill equipped to deal. Under this law, if citizen's arrest exists—and we cannot tell from the clause whether it does—we may see a landowner and half a dozen ghillies arresting a troop of hill walkers, or a gamekeeper arresting a group of environmental protestors.
      The official Opposition say "Out with this clause". It is inappropriate to Scotland; it has no place in Scotland. When a Labour Government are elected we will make sure that the law is repealed.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I rise—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Dickens: Landowner.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Indeed, yes. I rise to support amendment No. 28 because I regard clauses 58 and 59 as deeply sinister intrusions into the law of Scotland. They create powers which are unwarranted and unwanted. Like virtually every Scottish Member in this House, I have received large numbers of letters from constituents expressing strong opposition to the Government's proposal to create a new offence of trespass which could be used to restrict people's right of reasonable access to open countryside in Scotland.
      The only law of trespass in Scotland today is in the 1865 Act, which has very limited scope. It applies to unauthorised occupation of buildings, camping and lighting fires. It has no power to obstruct any other form of reasonable access to open countryside. We do not need such a power in Scotland and we do not want it. It is an alien concept which has no place in the law of Scotland.
      I speak as a Scottish Member of Parliament from a largely rural constituency, where local people and visitors alike have always enjoyed their access to the Lammermuir hills, the seaside links and the countryside in between. My constituency includes Dunbar, which is the birth place of John Muir, the founder of the environmental movement not only in Scotland but indeed in north America. It is an insult to his memory that we should be considering imposing restrictions on access to the countryside.
      I speak also as a farmer who has had plenty of experience of the free access to the open countryside that people enjoy in Scotland. It hardly ever causes any problems. On one occasion a problem was caused by the hunt appearing uninvited on the farm and doing some damage, but that was some time ago. Apart from that incident, my personal experience of farming in Scotland indicates that there is no problem associated with reasonable access to the open countryside. In Scotland we

      365
      have reasonable access provisions which are greatly enjoyed and not abused. There is no need for this amendment to the law.
      In an earlier debate on the Bill we heard about so-called "new age travellers". I fear that what we have in Scotland today—and what the Government are responding to today—is new age landlords. Some of them are home-grown, but in many cases they are people from outside Scotland who have acquired land in Scotland and who feel the need to lock gates and obstruct access to their land. They are creating aggravation where there has never been aggravation in the past.
      I have had some trouble of this kind in my constituency. A very substantial tract of my constituency—a big chunk of the Lammermuir hills—has been acquired by a landlord based in Hampshire—he could have been from anywhere, but he happens to be from Hampshire. He is seeking to obstruct and restrict people's access to his land in a part of the countryside where access has always been enjoyed in the past. There have been incidents where estate staff have ordered people off the hills—they have no right to do so, but people are easily intimidated under such circumstances.
      The clauses will encourage that type of landlord in Scotland. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the law is net supposed to work like that. I refer him to the advice that hon. Members have received from the Law Society of Scotland. The society has written:
      "In the Society's view this Clause could be interpreted to restrict many of the recreational uses to which the countryside is put.
      There is no exclusion of ramblers, hillwalkers or other recreational users from the provisions of the Clause".
      If the Law Society of Scotland reckons that the clause can be interpreted in that way, I am sure that its members and their clients will seek to interpret the legislation in that way and seek to impose restrictions where previously there were none. If it can be interpreted that way, it will be. The House must reject this alien and abhorrent intrusion into Scots law.
      Mrs. Ewing: The issue is an extremely emotional one for Scotland. There are two key resources for any country: its land and its people. The question of how to unite the land and its people is critical in terms of the economy, the environment and enjoying leisure pursuits in our region.
      One difficulty is that many people who speak on the subject try to define it as one that applies only to hill walkers, ramblers and Munro baggers. Those are key people, but there are many other organisations—about 60—that want to have access to our land. They involve geologists, archaeologists and ornithologists, and a variety of people. There is a fundamental principle at stake; it exists in Scotland and has been built up over the centuries. It is the freedom to roam the country while observing obvious and sensible codes of conduct.
      Another aspect, to which I particularly refer Labour Members, is that we are talking about legislation that will apply to Scotland and we again see Scottish legislation being crammed into a small section of a UK Bill. But, when it comes to the crunch, Labour Members from Scotland are quite happy to accept that this a United Kingdom Parliament. They vote in favour of Conservative Members from English constituencies dominating the legislative process. At some stage they have to decide whether they want to protect the Scottish legal system and
      366
      the laws of Scotland or whether they want to sit here on the green Benches and try to climb up the ladder of promotion in the United Kingdom.
      There are questions that I want to ask of the Ministers this evening. On what basis did Lord Fraser of Carmyllie decide that the provisions should extend to Scotland? He appeared on a television programme and made it quite clear through the Scottish Lobby that he asked for them to apply to Scotland. Where is the logic in that? If there were a strong argument for the Bill to be applied north of the border, surely Lord Fraser should have included the issue of raves. But that subject is not included in the Bill. What are the Government planning on that aspect? Who wrote to Lord Fraser of Carmyllie? Who asked him to apply the provision to Scotland? What factor led him to decide that the measures should apply to Scotland? Was there one letter or more than one letter or was it an ideological decision?
      What would the Minister define as lawful activity in the context of the Bill? I have already mentioned the various organisations, many of them comprised of very lawful people who have no desire to fall out with the landowners, the farmers and all the people who respect the countryside. Why cannot lawful activity be defined in the Bill? Does a deficiency exist in the Scottish legal system? Anyone who does not observe the countryside code, as the Minister and I understand it, can be prosecuted in civil law under the Trespass Act 1865 or for a breach of the peace. Why should criminality be attached to actions that I consider lawful?
      Does the Minister believe that Scotland faces the prospect of one landowner bringing a test case before the Scottish courts? If the landowner was not particularly sympathetic to ramblers, geologists and so on, such a test case could be a key factor in future Government legislative programmes and for Scottish courts. Relying on a test case sets a dangerous precedent in Scottish law, and one that could set the pace for future cases.
      This part of the Bill is vague, unnecessary and subject to various interpretations—as has already been made clear by the Law Society of Scotland and other organisations. Why is the Minister introducing such legislation now, when Scottish Natural Heritage is holding back on its access recommendations? In his letter to The Scotsman on 10 March, Magnus Magnusson said that rules of access to Scottish land must first be defined and that the Bill is premature. He warned the Secretary of State against changing trespass from a civil to a criminal offence.
      If the Minister is determined to pursue that course, what resources will he provide to chief constables and police forces in constituencies throughout the Scottish regions, so that they may employ extra staff? It is clear from the Bill that many police men and women will be required to police various organisations as their members walk through the hills and glens of Scotland—although that is clearly ridiculous. In the context of joint police boards under local government reorganisation, will suitable facilities be made available as part of those arrangements?
      The Bill has huge implications for the traditional right and freedom to roam our Scottish countryside, for our police forces and for tourism—with visitors discouraged, fearing that they will be accused of criminal activities. Why on earth are the Government adopting this attitude when the Bill concerns England and Wales?
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: I regret that, in her bitterness, the hon. Member for Moray

      367
      (Mrs. Ewing), instead of attacking the Government, once again could not refrain from attacking my party. Not only does that not do her party any good, but it does not do the cause that we are fighting any good.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh rose—
      Mr. Galbraith: No, I will not give way—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be to the advantage of the House if hon. Members settled down. Let us hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
      1 am
      Mr. Galbraith: I shall return to the substance of the debate. I am sure that the Minister must be somewhat ashamed of himself in having to introduce the amendment tonight. He knows that it offends the tradition of Scottish law and also the Scottish tradition of access to the Scottish countryside, be it high in the mountains or low in the plains. A tradition in which there has been a symbiosis between the landowners and those wishing to use it for recreational purposes has persisted throughout the years. But now the Minister and his Government are threatening that, for reasons that are not clear to Opposition Members. Perhaps the Minister will explain who asked for this provision in the Bill. Where is the demand coming from? The landowners say that it is not them. There is no recreational organisation. I think, therefore, that the Minister is duty bound to answer that question tonight.
      I have been tramping the Scottish hills and mountains for the best part of 40 years—yes I am only 40. I started early. In that time, I have noticed two significant changes. The first is the reduction in the amount of wild camping, where one can pitch one's tent by the road in glens without having to be organised into official camp sites. There has been a significant reduction in the amount of such camping over the years and it will be reduced by the Government's proposals tonight. In many cases, the reduction was necessary, because of the increased numbers, the sanitation, and so on, as seen, for example, on Glenbrittle, Skye. But, increasingly, landowners are breaking down the relationship between themselves and those who use the mountains.
      The second thing that has changed over the years is what climbers call the hassle factor—the number of signs that appear when one enters the mountains. The signs have no legal bearing or standing whatever, but are intended to try to bluff and intimidate hill walkers and others into not utilising the land. A current offensive sign is that in Strathconon. It reads:
      "Deer in these hills are shot from mid August-February for sport, meat and Government control policy"—
      whatever that is. But one can see immediately the inference that, somehow or other, it is Government policy and that one will offend some statute when there is no such statute to offend. It continues:
      "Walkers are therefore warned that rambling on high ground at this time can seriously upset large areas for deer stalking and can be dangerous."
      I wonder about the danger. I do not see the hills laden with shot hill walkers and mountain climbers. There is an important point in that notice in relation to what is termed "intent" in the Bill that is before us.
      On top of the hassle factor and the restriction—
      Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Galbraith: I am certain that I will regret this, but, as the hon. Gentleman is a well-known hill walker and will explain to me the intricacies of Scottish law, I will give way.
      Mr. Gallie: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Given the contents of the Bill, the fact that intimidation must be shown to have been involved, and that a uniformed police man must be present, is it not the case that, as was suggested by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), the hill walkers who have been hassled in the past by the ghillies and others can now feel quite confident in saying that they have no authority and that they should bring in someone, perhaps from the police force, before they can be forced from the land?
      Mr. Galbraith: It is clear that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has not read the Bill and does not understand any part of it. I shall explain to him that, if one is half-way up a mountain glen staring at a ghillie with a large-bore shotgun, quoting to him what the hon. Member for Ayr said in the Chamber will not assist one's chances of getting down.
      The Scottish Landowners Federation has given a number of assurances. I am not going to attack the federation—my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is a consummate expert at that so I shall leave it to him—but the problem is that it does not speak for all landowners and especially not for the new age landowners who are moving in.
      I cite the classic example of the land around Loch Maree which includes several mountains that are important to the climbing fraternity. Access to and camping on that land used to be free but along came a new landowner from outwith this country, and who is not part of our tradition, and suddenly there is a block not only on access but on camping. We are talking not about new age travellers or vast armies pitching their tents but about the occasional climber of Slioch. The assurances from the Scottish Landowners Federation are not adequate.
      The crux of the issue is intent. The Scottish Landowners Federation says that intent has to be shown but the problem is whether, if a notice similar to that which I have just described from Strathconon is presented at the point of access to the hills but ignored and bypassed by hill climbers—as it should be—in the knowledge that deerstalking is taking place, can the landowner claim and have it upheld in law that an individual had intended to disrupt that activity? That is the important point. Will the law state that an individual who ignores a notice stating that there might or might not be deerstalking in a given area intended to disrupt it?
      I remind the House that it need not necessarily be the intent of disrupting deerstalking; lambing must also be considered. Will crossing areas during the lambing season mean intentionally disrupting a lawful activity in which the landowner is engaged? It is a serious legal point, and I ask the Minister please not to tell us that the matter will be settled in the courts. It should not need to go that far; it should be clarified now.
      If the Minister is not willing to accept our amendments which would remove these provisions from Scotland, he should at least give an assurance that he will reconsider the

      369
      issue as the Scottish Landowners Federation said. We need better definitions to satisfy both sides of the argument so that once again the symbiosis between landowners and climbers and ramblers can continue and that we in Scotland can continue to maintain the freedom to roam the mountains.
      Mr. Wilson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I deplore the fact that what should have been the united voice of the Opposition parties was divided by a rather bitter and unpleasant attack on the Labour party by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who I think plays the role of Baldrick to the Blackadder of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I do not know where the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is—
      Mr. Welsh rose—
      Mr. Wilson: No, I shall not give way.
      The idea that there is a great Westminster conspiracy hardly stands up. The right to roam survived very well in Scotland from 1707 until 1994 under a Westminster Parliament. It is threatened not by Westminster but by the current breed of Tories at the Scottish Office. It was not I who voted in 1979 to help to bring the current breed of Tories to the Scottish Office—very specifically, it was both members of the Scottish National party who are here tonight. Perhaps they should have exercised a little foresight, because when they helped to bring the Tories to power, they were helping to bring this type of legislation to Scotland.
      There is nothing axiomatic in the system. The offence of aggravated trespass will apply not only to Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom. As a socialist and a Member of Parliament, my ambition will be to remove that offence from the statute book, not only in Scotland but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, too. I recognise, even if those silly people do not, that Scottish climbers do not climb only in Scotland, and English climbers do not climb only in England.
      We are concerned with a wider vista, and with defending the rights of our people—the ordinary people of every part of the United Kingdom. That, essentially, is what differentiates us from the nationalists, who try to divide and fragment every argument according to race and nationality, as opposed to seeing things within the framework in which they are only too pleased to participate at other times—the framework of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
      It is not Westminster but the Tories who are imposing the new law. It is not my job to advance the interests of Scottish nationalist Members, but I suggest that in their own interests they might sometimes address the real enemy instead of expressing their paranoia about the Labour party in Scotland.
      Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, I stand here tonight as the spokesman for the Scottish Landowners Federation. That is an unlikely role for me, because ai other times I have been critical of the federation as an organisation and of some of its individual members. But tonight I stand here happily holding a letter written on the notepaper of the Scottish Landowners Federation. If the Minister would stop talking to his fellow Under-Secretary
      370
      of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), long enough to listen, he might know what case he has to answer.
      The only people who seem to support the new power are those in the Tory party in Scotland. As I have said before, normally one of their roles is to act as the political wing of the Scottish Landowners Federation, so one would expect them to be prepared to accept the federation's bidding on this issue. However, the federation has been sufficiently moved by the campaign of resistance that we have led against the measure to make its position clear. I heard its views summarised on the radio this week, and I was surprised and interested enough to get hold of a copy what it had said.
      The preamble in the letter says that the federation wants the power of aggravated trespass in Scotland because there is a problem with hunt saboteurs and other such people, especially in the borders, and that it is worried that, if the new offence existed in England but not in Scotland, there would be an incentive for people to cross the border, and hunt saboteurs would become more active, particularly in the Borders. I do not necessarily accept any of that, and I certainly have no prejudice against hunt saboteurs, who probably do quite a good job.
      However, having set out that preamble, Duncan W. Thomson, legal adviser to the Scottish Landowners Federation, then makes the crucial point:
      "However, we are conscious of the concerns which have been expressed about the scope of these Clauses and, as we have no wish for there to be any possibility of this legislation restricting normal public access to the countryside or of limiting the public's legitimate right to protest, we would have no objection to any amendments which would narrow the focus of the Clauses onto the specific mischief to be targeted. Indeed we have suggested some alternative wording for this purpose."
      So what is the situation that we have to deal with? The. Government are advancing a catch-all power—I shall talk about the nature of that in a moment. Yet the Scottish Landowners Federation, in whose interests the Tories usually act, says that it recognises that such a power cannot be justified.
      In other contexts, the federation has also said that it does not believe that it is a catch-all power, and does not intend its members to use the measure as such. In the letter, it recognises that the public perception nonetheless is of a catch-all power, and says that, in order to avoid giving that impression, it is prepared, indeed happy, for amendments to be made to the Bill.
      The only point on which I dissent from the Scottish Landowners Federation is that it says when the power would not be used as a catch-all power, whereas I say that it would be. One cannot put this power into the hands of the Scottish landowning fraternity without expecting it to be used.
      1.15 am
      The whole business has its provenance in the Tory party conference last October, when the Home Secretary and various other luminaries were trying to chill the delegates to the marrow by raising the spectres of threats to society as we know it. They told the delegates how those threats to society were to be dealt with on the great law and order platform. Two particular bogies were introduced at that conference—new age travellers, who have always struck me as a relatively harmless lot in Scotland, and hunt saboteurs, who were to be clamped down on to repay a debt

      371
      to the British Field Sports Society. Those are the two bogies which were set up and which then had to be legislated against.
      The crucial point is that there is no mention on the face of the Bill of either new age travellers or hunt saboteurs. What is mentioned is groups of people who obstruct. That is nothing to do with what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said about threatening behaviour or intimidation. The Bill refers only to those who obstruct or disrupt "lawful activity". Virtually anything that landowners are likely to do in the Scottish countryside can be construed as lawful activity.
      The only defence of the Scottish Landowners Federation previously was to say, "It is not we, the landowners, who prosecute; it is the police who investigate and the procurator fiscal who decides whether to prosecute." However, the point is that every complaint will have to be investigated; that is not discretionary on the part of the police.
      The other crucial point, into which my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has gone in enough detail, is the fact that the provision will create a climate in which the banditry of Scottish landownership will feel encouraged to put up signs that are intended to intimidate. They are doing so already on the island of Arran in my constituency. I am delighted to say that every one of the signs has been taken down or painted out, and that that will continue.
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman said that I was wrong to suggest that intimidation would be involved. If he reads clause 58(1)(a), he will see that the word "intimidating" is used. It is he who should read the Bill.
      Mr. Wilson: With respect, it is the hon. Gentleman who should have the Bill read for him. The word "intimidating" is one of the options. The other two possibilities are obstruction and disruption, which are far more subjective than the word "intimidating".
      There is a great deal to be said on the matter. The provision is a fundamental threat to a very basic right in Scotland—the freedom to roam. The Minister should have nothing to do with it. He can wear two hats tonight. He can wear the hat of someone who is an upholder of the Scottish legal system, or he can wear the hat of someone who is the upholder of a Scottish landowning family. He cannot serve both masters.
      Mr. Bill Walker: It is true to say that there is concern in Scotland. Opposition Members who have spoken were right to draw attention to the concern. The concern is that people carrying out their normal, lawful activities fear that they will no longer be able to do so.
      We must look carefully at the term "aggravated trespass". I declare an interest here. As the House knows, I am chairman of the all-party scout group. The scouts are very active in the countryside. I also happen to be president of the Scottish Gliding Union. Anyone who has watched the gliders flying around Scotland will realise that they frequently land in other people's gardens and premises. On one occasion, I remember landing in the middle of a go-kart racing meeting, and I hope that my landing on that day would not be looked on as aggravated trespass in future.
      I also declare another interest: I regularly walk on the hills in my constituency—and elsewhere, but especially in my constituency. I know, and I have met, the people who
      372
      are concerned. I am sure that the Minister will reflect the aspects of their concerns and will explain to the House why aggravated trespass will be a part of Scottish law, because there are areas in which it is needed.
      However, the objective must be clearly to allow the activities that are currently carried out by individuals, such as those which I have described—the scouts, the hill walkers, the mountaineers and the glider pilots—to continue, so that there is no doubt whatever that normal activities are not at risk.
      Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall also be brief. I want to deal with two aspects which I do not think have been covered. Before doing so, I shall say to the Ministers that, again, there has been no consultation. Whom did they consult in Scotland? The issue is about Scottish people, including anglers and ornithologists, as has been mentioned, having access.
      I want to talk about birdwatchers. The steamer in May over to Orkney is full of people who are going bird watching. It is a big industry, by the way. It fills a lot of hotels and puts bread on the tables of a lot of people in those areas. If there is no access to the nesting sites, or to the lochs when trying to fish, or to the moorlands or the hills, how can people carry out their activities?
      Many barriers and no-go areas in Scotland already exist. Huge boulders have been put in natural parking places by landlords who do not want people to stop. They want people to continue, to move on, and they do not want anybody to have any access to the country in which they were born. They may have bought land in the country, but they have not bought the country, and they have certainly not bought the people of country. I want access for Scottish people and for any visitors-who are law-abiding.
      I have been stopped and asked why I am looking over a bridge into a pool that happens to be full of salmon in the Strathalladale valley. I did not have a fishing rod, I had no gun in my hand, but the people there who were in control happened to be the ghillies who were watching us from a hill, and they told us to move on while we were on a highway. We told them what to do with themselves in no uncertain fashion. That is without the law being changed. Under the interpretation of over-zealous people, we know what will happen. Such people will move on everybody if they do not like them, or if they cannot make any money from them.
      Aggravated trespass is trespassing of the wrong kind. I hope that the Government will think twice, especially the Ministers who are having a wee chat, and will take cognisance of the sincerity of our words. Like my colleagues and others, I have had many letters from many organisations and individuals who are worried about access and about the clause. I hope that, this early morning, we amend the clause, and I appeal to Conservative Members to support the amendment.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: The other week, I celebrated my silver wedding anniversary. Unfortunately, I had to be in the House to vote against the Government. If I had been privileged to spend the time with my wife, I would have been in the north of Scotland. I would have been in Sutherland enjoying the absolutely magnificent scenery and the magnificent countryside that we have in Scotland.

      373
      If the Government got their way, I would not be able to move in the countryside; I would probably be charged with aggravated trespass. I shall come to that point in a moment.
      The Government are one of the most bungling, bloody foolish Governments that we have ever had in the history of this country.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know how to conduct himself. I shall be grateful if he will withdraw the word "bloody".
      Mr. Graham: I withdraw.
      The Government have run the country into billions of pounds worth of debt. Once again, they have introduced a measure which will probably cost Scotland millions of pounds in tourist earnings. That is something that they do not recognise. They make every move with tunnel vision—they do not look at the overall situation.
      I live in Scotland. I also travel the length and breadth of Scotland, and I meet American tourists, Italian tourists and German tourists—I meet the lot. They come to Scotland for fishing, hunting, hill walking, climbing and ornithology. I do not think that Tory Members, especially the Minister, have any fun in life. Some of us know that the country makes a living out of fishing and various other leisure pursuits.
      Scotland has the longest coastline in Europe. Access to that long coast is free to the public and fishermen. I could take the Minister to many places in Scotland where people can park their cars, wander over the hills down to the beach, take out their fishing rods and throw them into the sea without breaking the law. Hopefully, they try to catch a cod, a haddock or whatever they can in the sea, without any fear of breaking the law. Under the Government's proposals, people will be breaking the law when they go to some of those areas; it will be aggravated trespass.
      Many people in Scotland may spend a weekend of pleasure perhaps by driving—they may even drive from my area of Linwood. Perhaps a busload of men and women who have worked hard all week will drive to the north of Scotland, cross to the beach, bring out their rods and fish without any problems. [Laughter.] Listen to the laughter of those who have plenty. Many people do not have plenty; they rely on the freedom and ability to take part in pursuits, but they will be punished for not having the money to go to a golf course, a swimming pool or whatever. In Scotland, sea fishing is free at present. There is no charge for or hindrance to crossing land.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) talked about ornithologists. I happen to be an amateur ornithologist. I know that Tory Members like real bird watching; my bird watching is of the feathered kind. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many places that could be denied to a group of ornithologists who wish to see rare birds which have a beauty that perhaps other folk may not appreciate, but ornithologists do. Yet we could be construed as an unlawful assembly. It is very frightening for somebody like myself who was born in a tenement building in Glasgow but who appreciates the opportunity to get out into the countryside and who recognises the freedom of the Scottish heritage and the right to the freedom of movement which we have always agreed that our people should have.
      As a kid and as a young man, I went with my father to camp on the banks of the Clyde. Maybe they were not very
      374
      salubrious. Maybe the Ministers camped near Cannes. Maybe they swanned about the Seine or whatever—I do not know. But when I was a young boy, we did not have money, and we camped on the banks of the Clyde. There was nothing more pleasurable than beachcombing. It gave us a wee bit of fun, and it did not cost our parents a fortune.
      If this law is passed tonight, these pursuits, which have been free to the people of Scotland, will become costly. Even the simple pursuit of sunbathing could be construed as a crime. I look at the rows of sun-tanned faces in front of me, the Tenerifes, the Canary Islands and the Bahamas. I can tell the House that few of the people I represent have that opportunity. They have to go into the public parks or to the free open spaces of Scotland—when the weather is good.
      The point that I am making is a serious one. I underline the fact that these things are free, not subject to a punitive £5 or £10 tax while the Government's leaders fly to sunny lands elsewhere.
      I have spoken about sea angling, about ornithology and about sunbathing, all of them free in Scotland. I will tell the House a story and ask hon. Members to think about it.
      I am an hon. Member, and last year, in the company of my wife, my 15-year-old son and a friend who is very knowledgeable about the countryside, I went for a drive in the north of Scotland. We drove into an area called Inverpolly. I hope that the House is listening to this story. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] We stopped in a beautiful part of Sutherland, known as Inverpolly nature reserve. My friend, my young son and I got out. [Laughter.] This is important. Maybe we have some laughing Members here and maybe they do not want to listen to a serious point, but they could be put in the situation that I was put in. My son was shown various sorts of fauna, things that were very rare. I am not skilled in these things, but my friend happens to be.
      A Land Rover drew up, and a young man got out with a Welsh accent. [Laughter.] He shouted to myself and my family, "What are you doing here?" [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is keen to know what the Welshman said.
      Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for your support in this serious matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The gentleman proceeded to ask what we were doing there. I said that we happened to be looking at the fauna, and that my friend was explaining to my son what it is, what it means and how it arrived in Scotland. It arrived long before any Welshmen came to the area. I did not enter into any argument with the man, but I asked him who he was. [Interruption.] Government Members who may want to know about the Bill which we are debating tonight should consider this.
      The man said that he was the landowner. He was not—he was the landowner's son. However, he was under the impression that we had to beg to be on the land. Is that the type of Scotland we want for the tourists who come along? I am not interested for myself, and I know that for every one of him there are a hundred others who will welcome the interest in the countryside.
      However, there is that individual who can abuse the law, deny that freedom of movement, damage the reputation of this country and of tourism in this country, and can cost us a fortune in earnings which we desperately

      375
      need. I say to the Minister that this is bad legislation. The Government are trying to crack an ant and use a tank. It is nonsense.
      I love Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I also love and appreciate other parts of the world. The one fundamental thing that I have is that I am free to move about and to love the Scotland I live in. I hope that my sons will cherish the love that I have for the country by knowing that they can move about in it.
      That is why we Scotsmen will play our part in defending this nation in any cause—because we know that we are supporting the right of Scotland to be for all. It is not for rich, it is not for the haves, but for every one of us—including those who have not even been born. I ask the Government to consign this bad legislation to the bin.
      Mr. Maclennan: I begin by expressing my appreciation to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for his eloquent testimony to the beauties of my constituency. Long may he visit it with his family and advertise its attractions. The hon. Gentleman expressed a true voice which needed to be expressed in this debate and which was an appropriate climax to the debate. He speaks for many in the House.
      It may be something of a dying cause to recall the origins of the two clauses that have proved so controversial this evening, but the Government's failure to recognise the views that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde expressed has unnecessarily led us a merry dance tonight.
      Undoubtedly, the two clauses were introduced in response to a genuine policing problem in England and Wales, and with the full support of the police there. The problem did not exist in Scotland and we discovered with some surprise that the Government intended that the law should also be applied there. Changes to the public order laws affecting access to land in Scotland are bound to be sensitive and should not be made without widespread open consultation. The mischief—if mischief there is—must be demonstrated clearly before amendments to Scots law are put before the House.
      It is not the case, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, that the Labour party lay down and accepted the legislation. In the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—the sole voice of the Labour party in Scotland on the Committee—from the very beginning protested most strongly about the manner in which the Government were legislating. He was right to do so. A part of the Bill is devoted to Scotland, but no Scottish Minister was present in Committee to explain what consultations had taken place and the attitude of the Scottish police and the Law Society of Scotland to the problem. We heard tonight that they do not believe that the two clauses are necessary or wise. None of those matters was debated properly or considered before tonight, which is why there has been a long, protracted and open discussion. We could not discuss them before.
      Contrary to the views expressed earlier, there is a justification for the two clauses to apply in England as they will enhance the effectiveness of the police when dealing with serious confrontations, which have grown in magnitude in recent years, to the point that lives have been lost in England and Wales. That problem does not exist in
      376
      Scotland and there is no reason to believe that it will do so. The proposition that it may is hypothetical and we should not legislate to make major changes in the public order law of Scotland on the basis of such a hypothesis. I therefore support the view that the amendments that affect Scotland should not be added to the Bill.
      Dr. Godman: I promise that I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the compliments that he paid me some minutes ago. Apart from all else, the debate has been reasonable—it was a lively one when my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), spoke.
      The debate was considerably marred by the unpleasant and nasty speech by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also protested over the inclusion of controversial Scottish legislation in what is primarily an English Bill. We said over and over again that the measures should have formed part of a Scottish criminal justice Bill—I am given to understand that one will be introduced next year—or a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Such measures come before the House every four or five years.
      As an immigrant to the Clyde and someone who is neither a Munro bagger nor an ornithologist like my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, I should like to make a couple of points. Incidentally, my hon. Friend is himself a bit of a land grabber. It looks as if, as a result of the findings of the Boundary Commission, the best part of my constituency will go to him. I may lose 9,000 or 10,000 votes. I would take that very badly if it meant that I did not have the second safest seat in Scotland.
      1.45 am
      The measures were introduced to deal with a difficult problem in the shape of the activities of so-called new age travellers, hunt saboteurs and other, so-called, subversive groups—subversive in the view of people with a Tory perspective. What is wrong with the existing legislation when it comes to dealing with people who behave in a disorderly or unruly fashion while traversing land owned by others? We have the common law charge of breach of the peace, which many police officers have told me is entirely adequate to deal with the rare cases of unruly trespassers. Do we not also have the civil law enabling a landowner or his or her factor to take out an interdict in the Court of Session? What is wrong with that law?
      As a lawyer, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows as well as any Opposition Member that the clauses have been foisted upon him by Home Office Ministers. When, in Committee, I challenged the Minister of State about bringing the legislation into Scotland, he said—I am not quoting him verbatim—"If we were to leave the law in Scotland as it stands, and introduce these necessary measures to deal with new age travellers and others south of the border, the new age travellers would head north." I do not know how far they would go. Would they look for standing stones, dolmens and so on?
      I challenge the Under-Secretary to contradict what I have just said. He and his right hon. and learned Friend at the Home Office foisted the legislation on to what I suspect were reluctant Scottish Office Ministers, as happened in

      377
      the case of the privatisation of prisons. In the context of the House of Commons and the Westminster Government, Scottish Office Ministers are very much messenger boys.
      A large constituency, including not just Scotland but the whole United Kingdom, could be affected by the measures. It is not a middle-class constituency. The people who walk the hills of Scotland, those who fish in Scotland and those who come to enjoy the country's remarkable flora and fauna are from every social stratum. The odd-job lot opposite who, by any measure of parliamentary democracy have no mandate to govern in Scotland, seek to make life difficult.
      I shall finish with an example. I know an old fellow in Glasgow. An ex-bricklayer, he is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). He is in his 85th year, so there is no way that he can now go Munro bagging. However, for 60 to 70 years he walked Scotland's hills with his late and lovely wife, Pearl. He asked me, "Why are they doing this?" That remarkable old man said, "We have the common law. People can be accused of breaching the peace if they behave badly. A landowner can bring in an interdict to prevent a group of people from behaving badly on other people's property, so why are the Government doing this?" I told him that it is because Scottish Office Ministers are the puppets of the Home Secretary, who says that, if England must have the legislation, Scotland must also have it. Scottish Office Ministers will come to regret that, because—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) would wrap up. She would not accept an intervention from me. She is always highly emotional because she is a loser.
      Mr. Welsh rose—
      Dr. Godman: The Minister is making a mistake in presenting the measures. He is an honourable man, who knows in his heart that this is bad legislation. Scotland's own legal system can deal with recalcitrant trespassers, who should be dealt with effectively and efficiently by the police. They can be dealt with by recourse to extant law. The measure applies to England and should be restricted to England.
      Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who would not give way to me, said that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was a loser. The biggest loser tonight will be Scotland because, despite all the fine sentiments that have been expressed, the vote in this United Kingdom Parliament will ultimately go against the wishes of the Scottish people.
      The call for unity has been rather pathetic. Those who have spoken against the measure realise full well that, despite their fine words, the vote will force an unwanted measure on Scotland. That is exactly what is going on upstairs in the Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. The clearly expressed wishes of the Scottish people are simply overruled because the in-built English majority is not listening to Scottish opinion.
      There is absolute unity about wanting to maintain the present system in Scotland, where our people have free access, as they should have, to country areas. If that goes, it will go because the United Kingdom Parliament cannot take account of the needs of Scotland or the Scottish people. I wish that the Unionists in the Labour party would
      378
      understand what they are inflicting on our people. All the fine words of protest mean nothing because of the system that they support. That will be seen in the Lobby tonight. When the Minister has finished replying, he will give no concessions. He will force this basically English measure, which is correct for England, on to Scotland.
      May I appeal to all those hon. Members who represent an English seat to think seriously? The measure is correct for them but do they understand that, in voting for it tonight, they will force on to Scotland a measure that is not needed or wanted and is against the wishes of the majority? The unity in opposition to the measure will not be reflected because the United Kingdom Parliament cannot meet Scottish needs. Hon. Members will be undoing the Union case by ignoring Scottish opinion yet again. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) broadly hinted that fact to the Minister.
      Ultimately, another United Kingdom vote will force on Scotland a measure that is unnecessary, unwanted and against the wishes of the people. That is the reality of the Unionism that the Labour party supports.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is not an English measure, as the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) suggests. It is a British measure, which applies to Britain as a whole. No Conservative Member is prepared to see Scotland, any more than any other part of the Great Britain, become a refuge or haven for saboteurs. We have one policy for the nation as a whole.
      The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made a most striking speech. He said that he was asked, "What are you doing here?" He is not the only Member to have been asked that. Brian Walden asked me that question on my first day in the House of Commons and I told him that I had been elected. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members have had their say and have asked many questions of the Minister. The Minister must be given the opportunity to give his answers in reasonable silence.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that these provisions are not, in any sense, directed against him, against hill roamers, or against anyone of that kind. The clause refers clearly to circumstances where the trespasser "intends to intimidate". The hon. Gentleman has never intimidated anyone with his fishing rod or anything else.
      I also make the point that, unless hill walkers, ramblers, Munro baggers, cyclists, anglers, ornithologists and the like intend to intimidate—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall not have to say this again. The Minister must be given a fair hearing. The Chair wishes to hear him and I hope that hon. Members do so also.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Unless these people intend to intimidate, disrupt or obstruct, there will be no question of the clause militating against them. Scotland is not immune to this kind of activity. There have been incidents—although very few—of this kind in the past. Scotland has been fortunate in not having witnessed the scale of problems encountered in parts of England, but there is every reason to take preventive action— [Interruption.]
      Mrs. Ewing rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been in the House for a long time. She should realise that when the Minister is on his feet she should remain in her seat.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Preventive measures should be taken to make certain that the difficulties that have arisen elsewhere in Britain are not allowed to arise in Scotland. This is a British policy and I strongly commend it to the House.
      Mr. James Wallace: I had not intended to speak, but it was clear that the Minister was not going to take interventions and I think that there are still important points to be made.
      Although a member of the Faculty of Advocates and of the Scottish Bar, the Minister quite clearly fails to appreciate that there is a distinctive legal system in Scotland. We may be a United Kingdom, but we are a United Kingdom that contains different legal systems. The Minister has not addressed that point.
      In this clause we are grafting on to the Scottish system measures that the Minister has made perfectly clear are not justified in terms of the mischief that the clause is meant to address. The Minister said that very few incidents have occurred in Scotland. He has not told the House where the pressure has come from within Scotland to bring forward such a measure. There have been some suggestions that the measure was forced upon the Scottish Office. There has been no openness whatsoever. Who has asked the Scottish Office to bring forward the measure?
      The Minister also failed to answer the important questions raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about how much the measure will cost the police forces in Scotland.
      Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Member also realise that the Minister did not answer the point that I raised: that the measure is a recipe for bad landlords? It will open up a can of worms. It will restrict not just indigenous Scots but tourists and the people who come to this country and spend much-needed income.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister did not answer a number of points. No Scottish Minister served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and the reply that we received from the Minister this evening did not do justice to the debate that preceded it.
      I understand that, under clauses 58 and 59, arrests can be made only by a constable in uniform. Does that mean that all hunts and grouse shoots or every expedition of ramblers has to be policed? If that is the case, what will be the financial cost to the police forces in Scotland? Will the Scottish Office make resources available to the police forces to allow this measure—which the Government obviously think is so necessary for Scotland—to be implemented properly? An important question about resources has arisen. That question has not been answered, and I hope that we can have an answer before the House is invited to vote on the amendment.
      Mr. John Maxton rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is that the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary, "No". Clear the Lobbies.
      Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The House proceeded to a Division:—
      2 am
      Mr. Maxton (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet wishing to speak in the debate when you called the Division. I do not consider that to be proper parliamentary procedure at the Report stage of a Bill in which anybody is entitled to speak if he rises to his feet unless a motion to close the debate has been moved. No such motion has been moved and I was on my feet wishing to speak. I want you to stop the Division and allow me to make the points that I was going to make.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair must be able to see an hon. Member on his feet, and I did not see anyone on his feet. [Interruption.] Order. I repeat that the occupant of the Chair is supposed to see an hon. Member on his feet and I did not see anyone on his feet. I have called a Division.
      Hon. Members: Shame.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is that the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary "No". I think the Ayes have it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 305, in page 110, line 29, leave out '123, 124, 126, 127'.
      No. 79, in page 110, line 30, leave out '132' and insert
      `132(1)'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 80, in page 110, line 32, after 'sections', insert '58, 59'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 108.

      Division No. 209]

      [2.03 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Burt, Alistair

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Arbuthnot, James

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Churchill, Mr

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Clappison, James

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkins, Robert

      Coe, Sebastian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Conwy, Derek

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Coombs, Simon, (Swindon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Couchman, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cran, James

      Bates, Michael

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

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davies, David (Boothferry)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Day, Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Delvin, Tim

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Booth, Hartley

      Dover, Den

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan, Alan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bowis, John

      Dunn, Bob

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Eggar, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Elleston, Harold

      Bright, Graham

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      381

      Evennett, David

      Mans, Keith

      Faber, David

      Marland, Paul

      Fabricant, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Mates, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Merchant, Piers

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mills, Iain

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      French, Douglas

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gale, Roger

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gallie, Phil

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Garnier, Edward

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Gill, Christopher

      Norris, Steve

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Ottaway, Richard

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Paice, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hague, William

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Pawsey, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Pickles, Eric

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Harris, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Richards, Rod

      Hawkins, Nick

      Riddick, Graham

      Hawksley, Warren

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hayes, Jerry

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Heald, Oliver

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hendry, Charles

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hicks, Robert

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

      Shersby, Michael

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Sims, Roger

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Jack, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spring, Richard

      Jessel, Toby

      Sproat, Iain

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Steen, Anthony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Stephen, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Stewart, Allan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Sweeney, Walter

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sykes, John

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

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

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Knox, Sir David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Thomason, Roy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Thomton, Sir Malcolm

      Legg, Barry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Leigh, Edward

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

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Tracey, Richard

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Tredinnick, David

      Lidington, David

      Trend, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lord, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Walden, George

      MacKay, Andrew

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Maclean, David

      Waller, Gary

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Wardle, Charles, (Bexhill)

      Madel, Sir David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Watts, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Wells, Bowen

      382

      Whitney, Ray

      Wolfson, Mark

      Whittingdale, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Yeo, Tim

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Mr. Michael Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Lewis, Terry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Austin-Walker, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Barnes, Harry

      McAllion, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      McCartney, Ian

      Blair, Tony

      Macdonald, Calum

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McFall, John

      Burden, Richard

      McKelvey, William

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      McLeish, Henry

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      McMaster, Gordon

      Clapham, Michael

      Madden, Max

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Mahon, Alice

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Marek, Dr John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Maxton, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Meale, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Michael, Alun

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dewar, Donald

      Milburn, Alan

      Dixon, Don

      Miller, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Dowd, Jim

      Morley, Elliot

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Etherington, Bill

      Mullin, Chris

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Olner, William

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      O'Neil Martin

      Foulkes, George

      Pickthall Colin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Pike, Peter L.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Galloway, George

      Rendel, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Graham, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gunnell, John

      Simpson, Alan

      Hanson, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Heppell, John

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

      Hinchliffe, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hoey, Kate

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Turner, Dennis

      Home Robertson, John

      Wallace, James

      Hood, Jimmy

      Watson, Mike

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wilson, Brian

      Hutton, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Illsley, Eric

      Worthington, Tony

      Ingram, Adam

      Wray, Jimmy

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

      Mr. Eric Clarke and

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Mr. Michael Connarty.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the calling of the vote, a number of points of order were raised and strong emotions were being expressed. I realise the difficulties for the Chair in an atmosphere of high emotion, and the debate, which lasted 91 minutes, was on a subject that is very important, certainly to Scotland. It has to be said that we were not reassured by the fact that, at the end of the debate, a Minister responded in three inadequate minutes. I therefore suggest that the anger felt by my colleagues is quite

      383
      understandable. Sensible arguments were made and serious and detailed questions were asked, but the Minister completely—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As an experienced Front Bencher, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for the Minister to decide on his own speech.
      Amendments made: No. 306, in page 110, line 32, leave out '125' and insert `to 127'.
      No. 81, in page 110, line 32, after '125', insert '132(2), (3) and (6)'.
      No. 103, in page 110, line 32, after '125' insert 133, 134'.
      No. 104, in page 110, line 33, at end insert
      `and sections 133 and 134 also extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man'.
      No. 82, in page 110, line 42, after '130', insert 132(5)'.
      No. 184, in page 110, line 42, after '130', insert 131(2)'.
      No. 83, in page 111, line 1, leave out 'Section 44 extends' and insert
      'Sections 44, 74(8) to (11), 75(4) to (6), 76(2) and 132(5A) extend'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Schedule 1
    ESCORT ARRANGEMENTS: ENGLAND AND WALES
    Amendment made: No. 297, in page 113, line 15, leave out 'hat' and insert 'headgear'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Schedule 4

    TRANSFER FOR TRIAL
    Amendments made: No. 191, in page 118, line 48, after 'shall' insert
    subject to subsection (10A) below,'.
    No. 192, in page 118, line 51, at end insert—
    '(10A) Where the evidence discloses an offence other than that charged the court need not dismiss the charge but may amend it or substitute a different offence; and if the court does so the amended or substituted charge shall be treated as the charge the proceedings on which are to be transferred for trial.'.
    No. 193, in page 119, line 7, after 'charges' insert 'on the same evidence'.
    No. 194, in page 119, line 19, at end insert
    'or has succeeded in relation to one or more but not all the charges,'.
    No. 195, in page 119, line 22, after 'charges' insert 'or remaining charges'.
    No. 196, in page 119, line 39, after 'case' insert
    `and of any documents referred to in it as having already been supplied to the magistrates' court on which it was served'.
    No. 197, in page 119, line 40, after `made)' insert 'a copy'.
    No. 198, in page 122, line 33, at end insert—
    ' "the 1976 Act" means the Bail Act 1976;'.
    No. 350, in page 122, line 33, at end insert—
    ' "the 1968 Act" means the Firearms Act 1968;'.
    No. 199, in page 123, line 28, at end insert—
    `Bail Act 1976 (c. 63.)
    . In section 3 of the 1976 Act (incidents of bail in criminal proceedings)—

    (a) in subsection (8) (variation and imposition of bail conditions by court), for the words from "committed" to "trial or" there shall be substituted the words "released a
    384
    person on bail on transferring proceedings against him to the Crown Court for trial or has committed him on bail to the Crown Court"; and

    (b) in subsection (8A), for the words "committed on bail" there shall be substituted the words "released on bail on the transfer of proceedings against him."

    No. 351, in page 123, line 28, at end insert—
    'Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27.)
    . In paragraph 3(3) of Part H of Schedule 6 to the 1968 Act (trial of certain offences under that Act)—

    (a) after the word "If' there shall be inserted the words ", under section 6 of the said Act of 1980,";

    (b) for the words from "determines" to "for trial" there shall be substituted the words "dismisses the charge against the accused";

    (c) in sub-subparagraph (a), for the words from "inquire" to "justices" there shall be substituted the words "proceed with a view to transferring for trial proceedings for the listed offence";

    (d) in sub-subparagraph (b)—

    (i) for the words "inquire into" there shall be substituted the words "proceed in respect of'; and

    (ii) for the words from "its inquiry" to "justices" there shall be substituted the words "a view to transferring for trial proceedings for that offence."'.

    No. 201, in page 126, line 6, at end insert—
    `. In section 129 of the 1980 Act (further remand), in subsection (4)—

    (a) for the words from "commits" to "bail" there shall be substituted the words "releases a person on bail on transferring proceedings against him to the Crown Court for trial"; and

    (b) for the words "so committed" there shall be substituted the words "in respect of whom proceedings have been transferred."'.

    No. 200, in page 128, line 43, at end insert—
    '.—(1) Schedule 3 to the 1988 Act (enforcement of contribution orders) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph 1(b)—

    (a) for the words from "who" to "by a magistrates' court)" there shall be substituted the words "against whom proceedings were transferred for trial or who was committed for sentence"; and

    (b) for the words "committed him" there shall be substituted the words "transferred the proceedings against him or committed him for sentence."

    (3) In paragraph 9(b), for sub-subparagraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-subparagraph—
    "(i) in the proceedings against the legally assisted person being transferred to the Crown Court for trial or in the legally assisted person being committed to the Crown Court for sentence, or."
    (4) In paragraph 10(2)(b), for sub-subparagraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-subparagraph—
    "(i) in the proceedings against the legally assisted person being transferred to the Crown Court for trial or in the legally assisted person being committed to the Crown Court for sentence, or."'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Schedule 9

    MINOR AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 186, in page 137, line 3, at end insert—
    'Poaching: increase in penalties
    .—(1) The Game Act 1831 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 30 (trespassing in search or pursuit of game)—

    (a) for the words "level 1" there shall be substituted the words "level 3"; and

    (b) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4."

    (3) In section 32 (searching for or pursuing game with a gun and using violence, etc.), for the words "level 4" there shall be substituted the words "level 5."
    (4) The Game (Scotland) Act 1832 shall be amended as follows.
    (5) In section 1 (trespassing in search or pursuit of game)—

    385

    (a) for the words "level 1" there shall be substituted the words "level 3"; and

    (b) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4."

    (6) In section 6 (penalty for assaults on persons acting under the Act), for the words "level 1" there shall be substituted the words "level 3."
    (7) The amendments made by this paragraph shall not apply to offences committed before this paragraph comes into force.'.
    No. 187, in page 137, line 7, at end insert—
    'Poaching: forfeiture of vehicles
    . After section 4 of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 there shall be inserted the following section—
    "Forfeiture of vehicles.
    4A.—(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section thirty of the Game Act 1831 as one of five or more persons liable under that section and the court is satisfied that any vehicle belonging to him or in his possession or under his control at the relevant time has been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the offence, the court may make an order for forfeiture under this subsection in respect of that vehicle.
    (2) The court may make an order under subsection (1) above whether or not it also deals with the offender in respect of the offence in any other way and without regard to any restriction on forfeiture in any enactment.
    (3) Facilitating the commission of the offence shall be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) above to include the taking of any steps after it has been committed for the purpose of—

    (a) avoiding apprehension or detection; or

    (b) removing from the land any person or property connected with the offence.

    (4) An order under subsection (1) above shall operate to deprive the offender of his rights, if any, in the vehicle to which it relates, and the vehicle shall (if not already in their possession) be taken into the possession of the pace.
    (5) Where any vehicle has been forfeited under subsection (1) above, a magistrates' court may, on application by a claimant of the vehicle, other than the offender from whom it was forfeited under subsection (1) above, make an order for delivery of the vehicle to the applicant if it appears to the court that he is the owner of the vehicle.
    (6) No application shall be made under subsection (5) above by any claimant of the vehicle after the expiration of six months from the date on which an order in respect of the vehicle was made under subsection (1) above.
    (7) No such application shall succeed unless the claimant satisfies the court either that he had not consented to the offender having possession of the vehicle or that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the vehicle was likely to be used for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above.
    (8) An order under subsection (5) above shall not affect the right of any person to take, within the period of six months from the date of an order under subsection (5) above, proceedings for the recovery of the vehicle from the person in possession of it in pursuance of the order, but on the expiration of that period the right shall cease.
    (9) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the disposal of vehicles, and for the application of the proceeds of sale of vehicles, forfeited under subsection (1) above where no application by a claimant of the property under subsection (5) above has been made within the period specified in subsection (6) above or no such application has succeeded.
    (10) The regulations may also provide for the investment of money and the audit of accounts.
    (11) The power to make regulations under subsection (9) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    (12) In this section, "relevant time", in relation to a person convicted of an offence such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, means the time when the vehicle was used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the offence, or the time of the issue of a summons in respect of the offence.."'.
    No. 349, in page 138, line 12, at end insert—
    'Firearms: increase in penalties
    .—(1) In Part I of Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968 (punishment of offences under the Act)—

    (a) in the entry for section 5(1) (possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition), in the entry in the fourth column specifying the punishment on conviction on indictment, for the words "5 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years"; and

    (b) in the entry for section 5(1A) (possessing or distributing other prohibited weapons)—

    (i) in the entry in the fourth column specifying the punishment on summary conviction, for the words "3 months" there shall be substituted the words "6 months"; and

    (ii) in the entry in the fourth column specifying the punishment on conviction on indictment, for the words "2 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years."

    (2) In Schedule 2 to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, in the entry relating to Article 6(1) (which makes persons convicted on indictment of certain offences relating to prohibited weapons liable, among other penalties, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years), in column 4 for the words "5 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years."'.
    No. 203, in page 139, leave out lines 8 to 12.
    No. 202, in page 141, line 26, at end insert—
    'Fraud cases: preparatory hearings
    . In section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (preparatory hearings for certain fraud cases), in subsection (1), for the words "seriousness and complexity" there shall be substituted the words "seriousness or complexity."'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 143, line 39, to leave out from 'below' to end of line 42.
    I shall not speak at length in view of the hour, but it would be remiss of us not to deal with the important issue of pre-sentence reports. The Minister who attended the Committee will know of the considerable anger that was expressed about the fact that amendments were tabled at a very late stage—amendments that had not been the subject of consultation with those who deal with pre-sentence reports and the business of probation.
    There had been no consultation with the Central Council of Probation Committees, either, or with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. The National Association of Probation Officers opposed the amendments and there was also concern and opposition on the part of the Justices' Clerks Society.
    That led us to table amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which would exempt offenders under the age of 18 from the provisions on pre-sentence reports. The Bill provides that the courts will no longer have to obtain a pre-sentence report before passing a custodial or community sentence on an offender if they consider that obtaining such a report is "unnecessary".
    The principal reason for requiring courts to consider pre-sentence reports before passing a custodial sentence was summarised in the 1990 White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", as follows:
    "The purpose of requiring the courts to consider a report by the probation service when a custodial sentence is contemplated will be to provide the court with detailed information about how the offender could be punished in the community, so that option can be fully considered."
    It seems that on the basis of a few conversations during his travels around the country the Minister came to the conclusion that that could be cast to one side.
    The adverse effects of custody on young people, and the high reconviction rates for young people released from custody, make it especially important that it is used only when other options have been carefully considered and, for

    387
    good reasons, rejected by the court. That should not be a matter for disagreement across the House. The Home Office's own figures show that 82 per cent. of juveniles leaving prison service custody are reconvicted within two years.
    Without up-to-date information of the kind available in a pre-sentence report, courts could impose sentences on young offenders harsher than might be justified in the circumstances, or indeed—to mention one of the possibilities that seem to concern Conservative Members more—sentences that are too short to protect the public from an offender who poses a risk of serious harm. Courts may also miss the opportunity to sentence an offender to a community sentence of a kind that can effectively tackle problems and change the attitudes underlying his or her offending.
    It is important that the court should have the right information before it, and a full understanding of the reasons why an offender has committed offences, so as to take the right decision and give the right punishment to deal with that particular offender and that particular offence.
    The importance of such information in selecting the best way of dealing with young offenders was underlined by the findings of the recent Policy Studies Institute survey, "Persistent Young Offenders", published this year. That showed that persistent young offenders frequently lead chaotic, disrupted and traumatised lives, often involving severe family problems, experience of abuse, exclusion from school, homelessness and—increasingly often in modern society—drugs. That is why the Opposition have tried to require the Government to introduce a proper national strategy for dealing with drugs, and especially to target young offenders within such a strategy.
    Young offenders' circumstances are liable to rapid change. That in itself is a reason why it is inadequate to depend on a report that, although recent, may not be up to date. Careful attention to up-to-date information when making decisions about the treatment of offenders is essential if they are to be helped to avoid a downward spiral made worse by the effects of the criminal justice system operating in the wrong way, and not working as it was intended to work.
    The type of information that can be made available, and that is extremely relevant to decisions, concerns the circumstances of the individual. For instance, family circumstances can change rapidly and there can be a crisis in the family. There should be information about the attitude of the offender to the victim, including whether there is remorse or a lack of it. There should be information about whether the offender has successfully completed previous non-custodial sentences. In my experience in both youth and adult courts, the report showing what has happened and what decisions have been made about an offender is frequently not up to date when the court comes to take a decision. Often it is the report prepared by the probation service that provides to the court information that is crucial in that it is up to date and understands precisely the circumstances of the offending. Information on the success or otherwise in completing non-custodial sentences, or breaches of or failure to respond to such sentences, should be before the court before decisions are taken.
    388
    Information about the offender's attitudes and characteristics which are relevant to the risk of future offending and the likely seriousness of any future offences should be available. The House should ensure that information on the seriousness of possible offences and the impact on victims is available to the court, especially in relation to those under 18.
    There is a danger that the continual fluctuations—there have been changes in the past three Criminal Justice Bills—in the amount of information that is available to the court in dealing with offenders undermine the system. That should not be allowed to happen, especially in relation to those aged under 18. I hope that the Minister will tell the House what consultations he has undertaken; he was invited in Committee to undertake consultations with the probation service, with the Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees, with those who have the responsibility of trying to make the system work, with the magistrates and with the Justices' Clerks Society. He should have undertaken those consultations because, as we said in Committee, we found out in the 48 hours before the Government's amendment being debated that all those organisations were very concerned about the amendment and had not been properly consulted.
    The importance of dealing properly, accurately and in a targeted way with those aged under 18 is, to a great extent, the key to the way in which we prevent young offenders from turning into persistent adult offenders. That should be a major target of the House and of the criminal justice system as a whole.
    I should have liked to have spoken for longer because these issues are extremely important. I have some experience, both as a magistrate and as member of a probation committee. It is wrong for the amendments, which were tabled at so late a stage, to brush aside careful consideration of these pieces of information, which are important not only to target the behaviour of the offender, but to ensure that the courts are able to do their job of protecting the public in the future and of reducing the likelihood of reoffending.
    For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House. I hope that the Minister will accept them as a modest step backwards from the extreme situation to which he took us in Committee. I hope that he will explain to us whether he has accepted the invitation for proper consultation, which had not been accepted before he moved amendments in Committee and which was needed before the House contemplated such a severe change in the method of dealing with reports in court.
    Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Of course, I greatly respect his experience as a magistrate. The more I listened to him, the more convinced I became that there was not much between us on the issue, although there was a small point of principle. I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Gentleman that that is enough to lead me to say that I cannot accept the amendments.
    The amendments would have the unhelpful effect, in the case of offenders aged under 18, of removing the limited discretion that the Government intend to give the courts to dispense with a pre-sentence report. The requirement in the case of juvenile offenders that the courts must have regard to a previous report on the offender concerned in all cases involving an offence triable summarily—or an either-way case—before they may exercise their discretion to dispense

    389
    with the requirement to obtain a pre-sentence report has been imposed by the Government precisely because we recognise that special considerations apply in the case of juveniles and because the courts must have proper regard to their welfare requirements. The effect of the constraints that we have imposed on the courts' discretion in the case of juveniles will be to ensure that in every case the courts will have regard to a report on the offender. That will provide the necessary safeguards for juvenile offenders who have been sentenced to custody or to a major community sentence for an offence triable summarily on either-way cases.
    2.30 am
    The restrictions imposed by the amendments will, I believe, limit the sentencing power of judges and magistrates unnecessarily and in an unacceptable way. In the case of juvenile offenders, the court will invariably have a report before it and, if it contains the infonnation that the court needs, I say to the hon. Member that there is no reason why a new pre-sentence report should be required.
    Of course, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the new arrangements will be kept under review to ensure that they work satisfactorily. I am convinced that they will. Of course, we shall want to keep them under review and, in the process of going round the country and consulting others, I shall ensure that we take any views into account. In view of those assurances and the fact that there is not a great deal between us, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 352, in page 144, line 44, at end insert—
    'Fines
    .—(1) Sections 18 and 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (which relate respectively to the fixing of fines and financial circumstances orders) shall be amended as provided in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.
    (2) In section 18—

    (a) for subsection (1), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
    "(1) Before fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender who is an individual, a court shall inquire into his financial circumstances."; and

    (b) in subsection (3), after the word "fine" there shall be inserted the words "to be imposed on an offender (whether an individual or other person)".

    (3) In section 20, in subsections (1), (1A), (1B), (1C), (2) and (3) for the words "a person" and "any person" there shall be substituted the words "an individual" and "any individual".
    (4) In section 57(4) of that Act (application to local authorities of power to order fines to be paid by a parent or guardian), paragraph (b) shall be omitted.
    (5) The amendments made by this paragraph apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the date on which this paragraph comes into force as they apply in relation to offenders convicted after that date.'.
    No. 354, in page 144, line 44, at end insert—
    'False statements as to financial circumstances
    . After section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 there shall be inserted the following section—
    "False statements as to financial circumstances.
    20A.—(1) A person who is charged with an offence who, in furnishing a statement of his financial circumstances in response to an official request—

    (a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular;

    (b) recklessly furnishes a statement which is false in a material particular; or

    (c) knowingly fails to disclose any material fact,
    390
    shall be 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.

    (2) For the purposes of this section an official request is a request which—

    (a) is made by the clerk of the magistrates' court or the appropriate officer of the Crown Court, as the case may be; and

    (b) is expressed to be made for informing the court, in the event of his being convicted, of his financial circumstances for the purpose of determining the amount of any fine the court may impose.

    (3) Proceedings in respect of an offence under this section may, notwithstanding anything in section 127(1) of the 1980 Act (limitation of time), be commenced at any time within two years from the date of the commission of the offence or within six months from its first discovery by the prosecutor, whichever period expires the earlier.".'
    No. 43, in page 145, line 16, at end insert—
    'Sexual offences
    .—(1) In section 31(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (which defines, amongst other expressions, "sexual offence"), for that definition, there shall be substituted the following definition—
    "sexual offence" means any of the following—

    (a) an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, other than—

    (i) an offence under section 12 or 13 of that Act which would not be an offence but for section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, or

    (ii) an offence under section 30, 31 or 33 to 36 of that Act;

    (b) an offence under section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959;

    (c) an offence under the Indecency with Children Act 1960;

    (d) an offence under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 of burglary with intent to commit rape;

    (e) an offence under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977;

    (f) an offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978;

    (g) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiracy to commit any of the offences in paragraphs (a) to (t) above;

    (h) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit any of those offences;

    (i) an offence of inciting another to commit any of those offences;".

    (2) The amendment made by this paragraph shall apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the date on which this paragraph comes into force as it applies in relation to offenders convicted after that date.'.
    No. 44, in page 146, line 14, at end insert—
    'Anonymity of victims of certain offences
    .—(1) In section 2(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (offences to which that Act applies), after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
    "(f) any conspiracy to commit any of those offences;
    (g) any incitement of another to commit any of those offences.".
    (2) The amendment made by this paragraph shall apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the date on which this paragraph comes into force as it applies in relation to offenders convicted after that date.'.
    No. 175, in page 146, line 18, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 19 and insert
    `substitution, for the words from "or the powers" to the end, of the words "and, where it confers a power on the court, shall not apply in proceedings instituted before the coming into force of that provision.".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Schedule 10

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 355, in page 146, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert 'proviso (b) shall be omitted.' No. 357, in page 146, line 27, at end insert—
    'Evidence of accused in criminal proceedings
    . In section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1923 (competency of accused to give evidence in criminal proceedings)—
    (a) after the words "Provided as follows:-" there shall be inserted the following proviso—
    "(a) A person so charged shall not be called as a witness in pursuance of this Act except upon his own application;";
    (a) proviso (b) shall be omitted.'
    No. 302, in page 147, line 38, at end insert—
    'Payment of damages by police authority
    . In section 48(4) of the Police Act 1964 (payment by police authority of damages awarded against constables), after the words "section 14 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".'
    No. 303, in page 148, line 10, at end insert—
    'Payment of damages by Scottish police authority
    . In section 39(4) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (payment by police authority of damages awarded against constables), after the words "section 11 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".'
    No. 88, in page 150, line 16, at end insert—
    '. —(1) The Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In Article 4(1)—

    (a) after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph"; and

    (b) after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".

    (3) In Article 5(3) and (5), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".
    (4) In Article 6(1), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".
    (5) In Article 7(1), after the word "Order" there shall be inserted the words "relating to indecent photographs of children".'.
    No. 177, in page 150, line 20, at end insert—
    'Procedure for young offenders in cases of grave crimes
    . In section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (exception to summary trial of children or young persons) the words "he has attained the age of 14 and" shall be omitted.'
    No. 360, in page 152, line 46, at end insert—
    '(1A) In Article 4—
    (a) in paragraph (1)—

    (i) for the words "to (7)" there shall be substituted the words "and (4)";

    (ii) in sub-paragraph (b), the words "be called upon to" shall be omitted;

    (iii) for the words from "if' onwards there shall be substituted the words ", at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, his legal representative informs the court that the accused will give evidence or, where he is unrepresented, the court ascertains from him that he will give evidence";

    (b) for paragraphs (2) and (3) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
    "(2) Where this paragraph applies, the court shall, at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, satisfy itself (in the case of proceedings on indictment conducted with a jury, in the presence of the jury) that the accused is aware that the stage has been reached at which evidence can be given for the defence and that he can, if he wishes, give evidence and that, if he chooses not to give evidence, or having been sworn, without good cause refuses to answer any question, it will be permissible for the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.";
    (c) in paragraph (4)—

    (i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Where this paragraph applies,";

    (ii) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words "from the refusal as appear proper" there shall be substituted the words "as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question";

    392

    (d) in paragraph (5), for the words "refusal to be sworn" there shall be substituted the words "failure to do so";

    (e) paragraphs (9) and (10) shall be omitted.'

    No. 185, in page 156, line 14, at end insert—
    'Contracted out prisons: exclusion of search powers
    In section 87(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (provisions of Prison Act 1952 not applying to contracted out prisons), after the word "officers)" there shall be inserted the words "and section 8A (powers of search by authorised employees)".'.
    No. 57, in page 156, line 33, at end insert—
    'Secure training orders: cost of supervision by probation officer
    In section 17 of the Probation Service Act 1993 (probation committee expenditure)—

    (a) in subsection (1), for the words "and(5)" there shall be substituted the words "(5) and (5A)"; and

    (b) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

    "(5A) Nothing in sections 18 or 19 requires there to be paid out of the metropolitan police fund or defrayed by a local authority any expenses of a probation committee which are defrayed by the Secretary of State under section 3(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Schedule 11

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 356, in page 156, line 39, column 3, leave out 'provisos (a) and (b)' and insert 'proviso (b)'.
    No. 358, in page 156, line 40, at end insert—

    '1923 c.9 (N.I.).

    Criminal Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1923.

    In section 1, proviso (b).'

    No. 204, in page 157, line 14, at end insert—

    '1965 c. 69.

    Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

    Section 1.'.

    No. 178, in page 157, line 41, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 24(1)(a), the words "he has attained the age of 14 and".'

    No. 205, in page 157, line 44, column 3, at end insert—
    No. 205, in page 157, line 44, column 3, at end insert—

    'Section 102.

    Section 103

    Section 105

    Section 106

    Section 145(1)(e)

    In section 150(1), the definition of "committal proceedings"

    In Schedule 5, paragraph 2.'

    No. 206, in page 158, line 27, at end insert—

    '1988 c. 34. Legal Aid Act 1988.

    In section 20(4)(a), the words "trial or".

    Section 20(4)(bb).

    Section 20(5).'.

    No. 359, in page 158, line 27, at end insert—

    '1988/1987 (N.1.20).

    Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

    In Article 4, in paragraph (1)(b) the words 'to be called upon to" and paragraphs (9) and (10).'

    No. 207, in page 158, line 34, at end insert—

    '1991 c. 13. War Crimes Act 1991.

    In Section 1(4), the Words "England, Wales or', part I of the Schedule.'.

    No. 353, in page 158, line 43, column 3, at end insert—

    Section 57(4)(b), together with the word "and" preceding it.'

    No. 347, in page 158, line 45, at end insert—
    `Note: The repeals that are to come into force on the passing of this Act are the following, namely, the repeals in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Title
  Amendment made: No. 133, line 30, after 'prisons;', insert
  to amend the law relating to homosexual acts'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Manuscript amendment made: In line 30, after 'prisons' insert
  `to penalise certain uses of germ cells or embryos'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Motion made and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Howard.]
  The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 44.

  Division No. 210]

  [2.34 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Alexander, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Churchill, Mr

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clappison, James

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Congdon, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, David (Boothferry)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Day, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Delvin, Tim

  Bendell, Vivian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan Alan

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Boswell, Tim

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowls, John

  Elleston, Harold

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evennett, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carttiss, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  394

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Gale, Roger

  Norris, Steve

  Gallie, Phil

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Page Richard

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gill, Christopher

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Pawsey, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Porter, David Waveney)

  Hague, William

  Richards, Rod

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Riddick, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Harris, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Sackville, Tom

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shersby, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Sims, Roger

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hendry, Charles

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Michael (S Worcs)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Sproat, Iain

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

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Stewart, Allan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Streeter, Gary

  Jessel, Toby

  Sumberg, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sweeney, Walter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sykes, John

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Key, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Thomason, Roy

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Knox, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

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

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tracey, Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Tredinnick, David

  Legg, Barry

  Trend, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Trotter, Neville

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lidington, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Walden, George

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Lord, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Whittingdale, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mans, Keith

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Willetts, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Merchant, Piers

  Wood, Timothy

  Mills, Iain

  Yeo, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Austin-Walker, John

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  395

  Clapham, Michael

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Lewis, Terry

  Clelland, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Connarty, Michael

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAllion, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mahon, Alice

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Graham, Thomas

  Pickthall, Colin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Sedgmore, Brian

  Gunnell, John

  Simpson, Alan

  Heppell, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Watts, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Wise, Audrey

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Mr. Neil Gerrard and

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Mr. Andrew Bennett.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Russia and Neighbouring States
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]
  2.43 am
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Even at this late hour, and after two very late evenings, I welcome the opportunity to raise the subject of the Government's policy towards Russia.
  Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was deputy chairman of a manufacturing and broadcasting group, and had the opportunity to work and live in many parts of the world. It was my privilege to count the Government of the former Soviet Union as one of my clients, which enabled me make many visits to that vast and enigmatic country.
  I had the exciting opportunity to see the birth of a new nation at close hand, and on one occasion even became involved in a massive demonstration in Red square in the dying days of the Gorbachev era. I was also able to play a small part in the training of Radio Moscow news personnel in western news gathering techniques and editorial policy.
  But no one—neither I nor my Russia friends, many of whom I have had the opportunity of entertaining here at the Palace of Westminster since my election—could have imagined the changes which have taken place during the past few years. The immediate aftermath of the failed August coup gave the impression that the new rulers of Soviet Russia were intoxicated with the liberalising ideal.
  While Yeltsin banned the communist party, the statue of the hated Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the first communist secret police, was being pulled down in the Lubyanka square. Shortly afterwards, a thorough reform of the KGB was announced by its newly appointed head Vadim Bakatin.
  A new dawn had at last arrived—or so it seemed. A couple of years after the coup, we witnessed the rise of Vladimir Wolfavitch Zhirinovsky. Hardliners have again been elected to the Russian Parliament, the Russian reform programmes have stalled, and KGB spies have been unearthed in America. Clear examples of Russian meddling have been exposed in the near abroad.
  As Professor Martin Malia argued in an essay in 1989, Russia is caught between two worlds: an old world which refuses to die and a new one which is too weak to be born. Is it any wonder that the famous organ Pravda stated on the dissolution of the old Soviet Union:
  "Some joyfully exclaim: Finita la comedia! Others are heaping their hands on their heads and ask what will be"?
  I welcome the opportunity in this debate to try to answer that question. In doing so, I intend first to comment on the unstable and dangerous political situation in Russia; secondly to examine Russian intervention in the near abroad; and finally, to offer proposals as to what the Government and the west can do to help ensure that the post-Soviet union moves progressively forward.
  First, the current position. In 1990, Solzhenitsyn declared:
  "Time has finally run out for communism, but its concrete edifice has not yet crumbled. May we not be crushed beneath the rubble instead of gaining liberty."
  Sadly, there are clear signs that the rubble is increasing. The election that took place on 12 December 1993, instead of ushering through a new era of democratic politicians, brought about the emergence of sovereign communism or

  397
  communo-patriotism, as Zhirinovsky's misnamed Liberal Democratic party and other pro-communists gained 40 per cent. of the seats in the state duma.
  The pro-reform forces won just 35 per cent. of seats in the lower chamber of Parliament. While the forces of darkness gained the upper hand in the Parliament, the forces of reaction took hold of the reins of power in government. Reformers like Prime Minister Yigal Gaidar and Finance Minister Boris Fydorov were usurped by grey men in wide lapels from the military-industrial complex. Those included men from the Brezhnev and Gorbachev era, such as Gerashenko as head of the central bank and Alexander Zaveryukha in charge of agriculture. The prospects for economic reform look bleak when the head of the central bank is beholden to the military-industrial lobby. The former western economic adviser to Yeltsin, Jeffrey Sachs, described Gerashenko as
  "the worst central bank Governor in history."
  Is it any wonder that genuine economic reform in Russia has faltered? Is it a surprise that the talk in Moscow is not of democracy and liberalisation, but of coups, President Yeltsin's ill health and Russia's impending slide towards dictatorship?
  What are we going to do to stop that slide? What can we do? Before coming to any conclusions, we must also consider the continued flourishing of the Russian intelligence services and the strength of its military forces. As we cut back on our defence budget, we would do well to remember the maxim:
  "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
  Russia has continued to developed weapons of germ warfare at special laboratories—known as the Biopreparat project—in defiance of international agreements. In late 1992, a Russian defector told the Central Intelligence Agency that, despite Yeltsin's claims, Russian researches into and development of new strains of genetically engineered super-weapons were continuing apace.
  As James Adams wrote in The Sunday Times on 27 March 1994, a secret new facility is being built in St Petersburg. Far from the Biopreparat biological warfare programme being shut down, it has undergone considerable modernisation. When we give financial aid to Russia, should we not first consider how much money is being spent on such programmes?
  Can my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister confirm the report in The Spectator of 23 January 1993 that the Foreign Secretary and the former United States Secretary of State, Mr. Lawrence Eagleburger, wrote a letter on 24 August 1992 to Andrei Kozyrev, stating:
  "We are very concerned that some aspects of the offensive biological warfare programme, which President Yeltsin acknowledged as having existed and which he banned in April, are in fact being continued"?
  Since that letter, far from any scaling down of that research, Russian scientists have been put on trial as recently as February this year for revealing a "state secret" in the Moscow News about a lethal new chemical weapon called Novichok.
  What are we to make of the revival of the activities of the Russian intelligence services? Last November, Michael Smith—an electronics engineer—was jailed for 25 years on three charges of spying for Russia, including giving Russian intelligence notes about the star wars project. When speaking for the prosecution, our Solicitor-General said:
  398
  "The political situation in Russia was, and still is, unstable and Russia cannot be ruled out as a potential future enemy."
  In the United States too the CIA has been rocked to the seams by one of the worst spying breaches in history.
  Soviet and anti-democratic revivalists are sadly still on the march, and while some progress is being made towards reform, for many people in the former Soviet Union, the end of the cold war has not yet thawed much of the political system. Cold thaw politics must not be allowed to evolve into a cold peace.
  What about Russian activities in the near abroad? The Government should note with increasing concern the actions of Russia in the former Soviet republics. Do we want a genuine commonwealth of independent states, or are we content to sit by and see a new Soviet Union mark 2 emerging—a new Russian empire in which the republics are mere satellites of the Kremlin once again?
  Recent months have witnessed a resurgent Russia, intent on ensuring that the republics remain in Russia's sphere of influence. Russian troops seem intent on staying in Estonia and Latvia. In other republics, such as Georgia, Moscow has established virtual protectorates, signing so-called treaties of "friendship, good neighbourliness and co-operation." The treaties allow the Russian army to establish three military bases in Georgia.
  In other republics, such as Azerbaijan and Belarus, by engineering local coups, Moscow has made certain that democratically elected presidents are replaced by leaders sympathetic to Moscow. That is why former Politburo member and ally of Brezhnev, Geidar Aliev, now rules Azerbaijan, and why the reformer Stanislav Shushkevich was replaced by a former senior Soviet policeman, Mecheslav Grib.
  In the Ukraine, Russia seems intent on stirring up civil war by encouraging and supporting pro-Russia candidates.
  Will the west stand by as Russia attempts to regain its old colonial empire? As the famous historian Richard Pipes has remarked,
  "One can understand Russia's resistance to international forces operating on what had hitherto been her domain … But by what right does Moscow assert the privilege of intervening in neighbouring countries whose sovereignty it recognises?"
  Pipes makes an important point here. Why should the Russian army be allowed to intervene in sovereign states like Moldavia?
  So I come to my third and final point: what can be done? What should be Government policy towards Russia? Churchill said that Russia
  "is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma".
  Yet there are some things that the Government, together with other countries in the west, can do to persuade Russia to embark on a genuine programme of reform and liberalisation.
  Schemes like the know-how fund are excellent and should be expanded. It is a shame that Members of the European Parliament have frozen half the European Union's TACIS budget. I very much welcome the excellent activities of the all-party group the Future of Europe Trust. These should be supported every step of the way.
  We need to link aid more to the behaviour of Russia in the near abroad. We have to be careful that Russian aid does not allow the Russian Government to evade hard economic policies such as the cutting of subsidies. Money should be more specifically targeted and ring-fenced for the purpose for which it is intended—for education, for training and for clearing up the environment, and so on. As

  399
  George Soros recommends, aid should be given in the form of hard currency, and should go directly to the people, by-passing Parliament.
  The successful reforms carried out by the governor of Nizhy Novgorod should be examined closely by the west as a model of successful reform. The governor of the region, Boris Nemtsov, has achieved miracles in his economic reforms, and should be encouraged in every way possible. We should encourage the development of modern politics even more than we do already. We should actively encourage democratic political groups to present clear and cogent proposals for reform and end their internal divisions.
  A vigorous coalition of pro-democracy forces would present a real threat—as it did during the 1991 August coup—to the forces of reaction. Such a coalition, with a sensible programme of reform, would gain respect and support from western nations. In turn, this would bolster and encourage the granting of aid to help smooth the difficulties created by price liberalisation and unemployment. If President Yeltsin is to fulfil the ideas so cogently argued in his memoirs "Against the Grain" he must be persuaded once again to ally himself with the democrats and to move away from the cold embraces of those opposed to reform.
  The balance of constructive support with internal interference is a difficult tightrope to tread. We must all be aware of that fact. Mother Russia and her people have a long and heroic history, and we must be ever aware that no citizen of any country, let alone of a super-power, welcomes interference from a foreign power.
  Yet, while wishing the Russian Federation and its people godspeed in their long trek to democracy and prosperity, we must be ever alert to prevent that nation's slide into another hell, which could drag the whole world into its inferno. As Milton said in "Paradise Lost",
  "Long is the way and hard that out of hell leads up into light".
  2.55 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This issue is indeed an important one. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on the knowledge and learning that he has displayed, and on his understanding of the problems that beset modern Russia. He has illuminated the debate. As the hour is wholly inappropriate for discussion of a matter of such gravity, I propose to be very brief.
  My hon. Friend focused on three issues—the current position, the near abroad and main pillars of policy. I shall make just a few remarks under each heading.
  First, on the current position, my hon. Friend is pessimistic, and there is cause for pessimism. I am less pessimistic than him. I believe that policies of reform are
  400
  still alive. However, if there is not substantial economic progress within the next two years, prospects are pretty bleak.
  My hon. Friend went on to discuss the near abroad. Russia has legitimate concerns within the former Soviet Union, but we must never accept that Russia has the right to assert political or military hegemony over the countries of the former Soviet Union. It is essential that we recognise that the countries of the former Soviet Union are independent sovereign states.
  That recognition should underpin our policy towards Russian policy in what they refer to as the "near abroad". In so far as Russian forces may be committed within the Commonwealth of Independent States, it is important that those forces are committed either with the genuine consent of the countries where they operate or under proper international mandate and authority—by which I mean either the mandate of the United Nations or the mandate of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, should that body be in a position to grant a mandate.
  On the third question—the main pillars of policy that we should adopt—my hon. Friend made a number of sensible suggestions. I agree entirely with the need for technical aid, and I am glad that my hon. Friend was complimentary about the know-how fund.
  I believe that encouraging trade—Russia's ability to trade with the west—is of critical importance. Unless Russia has access to western markets, it will be extraordinarily difficult for it to attract inward investment. Unless it can attract inward investment, the prospects of developing its own indigenous industry so that it matches western standards in terms of quality and design are, again, pretty bleak.
  I agree, too, with what my hon. Friend said about financial support. We should be careful about giving financial support because Russia is the proverbial black hole, and if we are underpinning the Russian economy, we must be sure that, for its part, it is fulfilling the programmes established by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. There is a high degree of conditionality between the two.
  Finally, on security, the concept of partnership for peace—establishing a working partnership or relationship between NATO and the countries of the former Warsaw pact, or former Soviet Union, depending on one's classification for those purposes—is of critical importance. It is central to that issue that NATO and Russia develop a full partnership for peace agreement that covers the whole range of co-operation, joint exercises and strategic discussions, which are essential if Russia is not to feel isolated and somehow excluded from the European security institutions.
  I know that I have been brief, and have not done justice to my hon. Friend's speech, but the hour is extremely late, and I have tried to reply to the main points that he made with great eloquence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ritchie Report
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 888, if he will implement the recommendations of the Ritchie report to standardise the documentation covered by section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Maclean
  As stated in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health on 18 March, this recommendation is under consideration.

  Directorate of Telecommunications
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 737, if he will make a statement on the automatic redundancy entitlement of DTELS staff who do not consent to a variance in staff severance terms; and how long is the period after the sale in which National Transcommunications has confirmed that it will not be seeking to discuss and agree changes to staff terms.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  If National Transcommunications Ltd. varies or attempts to vary staff severance terms without the consent of DTELS staff, the normal legal remedies will be available to those staff. I have no further knowledge of National Transcommunication Ltd.'s intentions regarding conditions of service. This is a matter for the company and DTELS staff.

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

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The following Acts of Parliament that have an effect on local government have been introduced by the Department since 1990. The list also includes consolidation Acts in respect of which the Department has responsibility.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53)

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c.65)

  Charities Act 1992 (c.41)

  1Charities Act 1993 (c.10)

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (c.23)

  1Probation Service Act 1993 (c.47)

  1Consolidation Acts

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what structures have been put in place to ensure effective monitoring of the implementation of 166
  section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and what information is available to show the outcome of its first year of operation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into effect in October 1991. The matters with which it is concerned are kept under regular review by officials in my Department, assisted and advised by officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service. Separate publications dealing with race and gender issues were widely distributed in September 1992; and a booklet about costs received a similar distribution in January 1993. Additional material on race, prepared specifically for the Judicial Studies Board, was also published in 1993. Further information about race will be published shortly.

  Bail Hostels
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of places available in bail hostels; and what will be the number in 12 months' time.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 1 April, there was a total of 2,597 available places in approved bail and probation-bail hostels in England and Wales. Included in this figure are a number of approved hostel places scheduled for closure. The currently projected total of available places on 1 April 1995 is 2,560.

  Remand Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated number of remand prisoners who have been awaiting trial(a) for more than three months, (b) for more than six months, (c) for more than 12 months and (d) for more than 18 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available provisional data are for 31 December 1993 and are in the table.

  Inmates recorded as being untried held in custody on 31st December 1993 by time on remand

  Number

  For over 3 months up to and including 6 months

  1,960

  For over 6 months up to and including 12 months

  1,020

  For over 12 months up to and including 18 months

  170

  For over 18 months

  190

  Not all these defendants will have been in continuous prison custody since their first remand. This period excludes any time spent in non-Prison Service establishments—for example, police cells—before reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment; it includes inmates who are awaiting trial and those being tried.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners were being held in police cells on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  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 Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 April 1994:

  167
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of remand prisoners being held in police cells.
  On 5 April 1994, the latest date for which complete information is available, 274 remand prisoners were held in police cells.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic composition of the remand population in prison at the latest available date.

  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 Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 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 what was the ethnic composition of the remand population in prison at the latest available date.
  The latest available information is for 31 December 1993 and is given in the table. The ethnic breakdown of the remand population is based on the Census of Population ethnic coding classification which was introduced in prisons in October 1992.

  Remand population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1993 by sex and ethnic origin1

  Ethnic origin

  Males

  Females

  Total

  WHITE

  8,654

  293

  8,947

  BLACK African, Caribbean, other

  1,245

  74

  1,319

  SOUTH ASIAN Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani

  275

  7

  282

  CHINESE AND OTHER Other Asian, other Chinese, not recorded2

  201

  14

  215

  ALL PERSONS

  10,375

  388

  10,763

  Number of persons remanded on bail

  Thousands

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Indictable offences

  277·2

  271·0

  304·6

  314·7

  321·8

  Summary (non motoring) offences

  48·7

  69·9

  76·0

  72·8

  71·0

  Summary motoring offences

  38·2

  51·7

  61·3

  65·0

  65·9

  Total

  364·0

  392·6

  441·9

  452·5

  458·7

  Persons remanded on bail as percentage of total remanded

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Indictable offences

  87

  87

  88

  88

  89

  Summary (non motoring) offences

  95

  93

  94

  94

  94

  Summary motoring offences

  96

  95

  95

  95

  96

  Total

  89

  89

  90

  90

  90

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Waiting Times
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average waiting time for trial at(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts for defendants granted bail and those remanded in custody.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The readily available information for magistrates courts relates to proceedings for indictable
  168
  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Including refusal.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people remanded in custody by magistrates courts in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table. It is also published annually in chapter 8 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Number of persons remanded in custody in England and Wales

  Thousands

  1988

  46·8

  1989

  49·6

  1990

  48·5

  1991

  50·8

  1992

  49·3

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proportion of persons in each police force area proceeded against at magistrates courts who are remanded on bail for(a) indictable offences and (b) summary offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  The data available for each police force area are not reliable enough to be able to answer this question. Information on a national basis is given in the table. These figures are published in chapter 8 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  —including either-way—offences. Sample surveys during 1993 show that the average time interval from first listing to completion of such cases at magistrates courts was 7·3 weeks for defendants remanded in custody throughout proceedings and 10·1 weeks for those remanded on bail only. Provisional figures for the Crown court show that the average time interval from committal for trial to start of hearing for cases disposed of during 1993 was 12·6 weeks for those remanded in custody and 16·7 weeks for those remanded on bail.

TREASURY

  Taxpayers (Earnings)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers in(a) Lancashire and (b) the United Kingdom earn £64,000 or more a year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There were estimated to be about 4,000 taxpayers resident in Lancashire and 260,000 taxpayers in the United Kingdom with income of £64,000 or more in 1991–92, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level.

  Pension Contributions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield from providing tax relief for pension contributions of higher-rate taxpayers at the basic rate only.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that the full-year yield might be about £520 million at 1993–94 levels. This takes no account of possible behavioural effects following such a change.

  Income Statistics
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the equivalised disposable income, at 1992 prices, at the bottom, second and top decile groups, ranked by equivalised disposable income, in conformity with tables 3 and 7 of "Economic Trends" No. 483 for 1992 for(a) all households and (b) non-retired households with children for (i) 1979 and (ii) 1986.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures are available only at current prices. Those given in the table, and those for later years, are not strictly comparable over time because of changes in classification of both income and taxation and because of changes in the family expenditure survey.

  Average equivalised disposable income by decile groups of all households in the family expenditure survey, ranked by equivalised disposable income of all households using the McClements equivalence scale with a household of a married couple = 1

  Current prices

  Decile groups of equivalised disposable income

  1979 £ per year

  1986 £ per year

  Bottom

  1,689

  3,094

  2nd

  2,179

  4,065

  Top

  8,664

  20,229

  Average equivalised disposable income by decile groups of non-retired households with children ranked by equivalised disposable income of non-retired households with children using the McClements equivalence scale with a household of a married couple = 1

  Current prices

  Decile groups of equivalised disposable income

  1979 £ per year

  1986 £ per year

  Bottom

  1,819

  2,991

  2nd

  2,474

  3,990

  Top

  7,706

  17,062

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts currently being worked on for his Department by Coopers and Lybrand,170
  Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, KPMG Peat Marwick, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes, Levy Gee, BDO Binder Hamlyn, Hacker Young, Pannell Kerr Forster and Stoy Hayward.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table lists relevant companies currently working on contracts for HM Treasury, together with the type of consulting work for each company.

  COMPANY AND TYPE OF CONSULTANCY WORK

  Coopers and Lybrand—Market Testing

  Ernst and Young—Privatisation

  Price Waterhouse—Management Consultancy, Privatisation, Auditing

  KPMG Peat Marwick—Management Consultancy

  BDO Binder Hamlyn—Auditing

  Uganda
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total aggregate indebtedness of Uganda to the United Kingdom, by way of outstanding bilateral loans; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards easing the burden of this debt.

  Mr. Nelson
  Uganda's outstanding debts to the United Kingdom total £25£5 million, all of which are in respect of business insured by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. All outstanding debts to the Overseas Development Administration were written off in 1981 under the provisions of retrospective terms agreement.

  On 17 June 1992, Uganda rescheduled its official bilateral debts to Paris club creditors under a concessional, Trinidad terms agreement. This involved writing down by 50 per cent. the maturities falling due over the period of Uganda's International Monetary Fund programme. It also included a commitment by creditors to consider action on the whole of Uganda's official bilateral debt stock in three years' time, subject to Uganda maintaining a good debt servicing record and a satisfactory performance under an IMF programme.

  The United Kingdom is pressing the other Paris club creditors to improve the existing Trinidad terms. In particular, we should like the Paris club to increase the rate of debt reduction above 50 per cent. and to offer immediate stock of debt reductions for countries with a good track record of debt servicing and economic reform.

  Bank of England Governor
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish minutes of his monthly monetary meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. I agree with the recommendation by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that I should publish, with a lag, minutes of my monthly monetary meetings with the Governor. I believe that greater transparency has helped the operation of monetary policy and increased accountability.

  I am, therefore, publishing today the minutes of the meetings held in January, February and the beginning of March. Thereafter, the minutes of each meeting will be published around two weeks after the subsequent meeting has taken place. I have arranged for copies of the minutes to be placed in the Library of the House.

  I am confident that the minutes of these and future meetings will confirm the Government's commitment to sustained low inflation and sound monetary policy.

  Manufacturing, Midlands
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for manufacturing output in(a) the west midlands and (b) Coventry.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of gross value added in manufacturing for the west midlands and Coventry are set out in the table. The latest available figures are for 1991.

  Gross value added in manufacturing—1991

  Area

  Gross value added £ million

  West midlands

  6,585·2

  Coventry

  1,311·4

  Source: Annual census of production.

  Information on published back data is available from table 15.3 of "Regional Trends", copies of which are available from the House of Commons Library. This information can also be obtained from the central shared data bank.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the effect of pre-payment by large-scale gas and electricity users to avoid value added tax on domestic fuel from 1 April; and what assessment he has made of the scale of pre-payment and its effect on (i) the revenue expected from the tax and (ii) the level of savings held in building societies.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: It is estimated that about 5 per cent. of domestic electricity consumers and about 4 per cent. of domestic gas consumers paid fuel bills in advance of the imposition of VAT on 1 April. No breakdown of the figures by size of user is possible. The effect of these prepayments on the revenue yield is estimated to be small in comparison with the yield from VAT on domestic fuel and power. It is not possible to quantify the effect of these prepayments on the level of savings in building societies.

ENVIRONMENT

  European Funding
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under which schemes local authorities have received European funding since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The principal sources of EC funding that local authorities may receive are the European structural funds. Prior to 1989, applications for European regional development fund assistance for specific projects were submitted to the European Commission for approval. Since 1989, projects have been considered at regional level under Community support frameworks, agreed between the member state and the European Commission, for areas eligible under structural fund objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). Local authorities have also been able to apply for European social fund projects under objectives 3 and 4. Other funding from the structural funds has been available to local authorities through Community initiatives of which there have been a total of 14 in the period 1989–93.172
  Examples of these initiatives are Rechar for coalfield areas and Interreg for cross-border areas. New Community support frameworks, and European Commission proposals for Community initiatives, for the period 1994–99 are in the process of being established.

  Local authorities have also been able to obtain grants or loans or other awards from various other European sources. My Department does not have records of funding that may have been received in this way.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total staff complement of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; how many of these are inspectors with responsibility for integrated pollution control enforcement at site level; how many site visits have been made to part A prescribed processes in 1991, 1992 and 1993; and what targets have been set for IPC inspection staff, enforcement activity and site visits for 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Atkins
  As at 1 April 1994, the total staff complement of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was 434.5. At that date, there were 122 complemented inspector posts with responsibility for integrated pollution control enforcement at site level. Data on site visits are kept by financial year. In 1991–92, there were 1,205 site visits to part A prescribed processes regulated under integrated pollution control·IPC; in 1992–93, there were 3,364 visits and in 1993–94—in the period to end of December 1993—there were 3,495 visits.

  The target is to maintain the complement for IPC inspection staff in 1994–95 at 122 posts. Enforcement activity is reactive, but resources will be made available for it as necessary. The target for site visits to part A prescribed processes in 1994–95 is 3,030.

  The actual number of visits is expected to be greater than this number because of additional reactive visits which will be made in response to complaints and incidents as they arise.

  London Docklands
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by local authority area, each London Docklands development corporation-owned site in the Docklands urban development area which is currently undeveloped.

  Sir George Young
  I have asked my Department to produce this information. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total spending that the London Docklands development corporation is committing to social projects in 1994–95; and if he will break this figure down into amounts to be spent on(a) training, (b) social housing, (c) Tower Hamlets accord, (d) Newham memorandum of agreement, (e) community grants and (f) health projects; and if he will make a statement on the future of the social programme.

  Sir George Young
  The London Docklands development corporation is proposing to spend £14,518,000 in 1994–95 on social projects. This allocation is due to be discussed formally with the Department in the corporate plan round currently under way.
  173
  The breakdown is:

  Category

  £ thousand

  (a) Training

  1,024

  (b) Social housing

  2,062

  (c) Tower Hamlets accord

  5,063

  (d) Newham memorandum

  2,979

  (e) Community grants

  2,542

  (f) Health projects

  303

  (g) Schools and education

  545

  The social programme continues to be a key area of the corporation's activities in its remit to assist regeneration in the docklands.

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

  Mr. Gummer
  The information technology consultants have been used for a wide variety of purposes including facilities management, research, training, risk assessment, and data administration. The total cost for each of the last four years is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  1,427,230

  1991–92

  4,029,342

  1992–93

  2,742,459

  1993–94

  1,794,048

  Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders Bill
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Council of Mortgage Lenders in relation to the Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders Bill.

  Sir George Young
  Ministers and officials have had a number of discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders about the difficulties faced by some leaseholders of local authority dwellings. We are currently consulting them and other relevant organisations about the possible revision of the standard mortgage indemnity agreement used by local authorities.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which EC member states have no specific legislation on zoos; and what steps he takes to ensure the welfare of animals exported from the United Kingdom to zoos in such countries.

  Mr. Atkins
  According to our latest information, I understand that Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain do not have specific zoo legislation.

  Live animals must be transported in accordance with the International Air Transport Association's live animals regulations. The welfare of animals in zoos is a matter for individual member states.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when draft guidelines were issued by his Department in connection with possible applications for assistance under the single regeneration budget; what response he received to those draft guidelines; on what date he expects to be able to publish final guidelines; by what date initial approval for applications under the scheme must be made; and what is the final deadline for approved applications.

  Mr. Baldry
  Draft guidance to those with an interest in bidding for funding from the single regeneration budget for 1995–96 was issued for consultation on 14 January, with responses requested by 25 February. Ten thousand copies of the draft guidance were circulated, 11 seminars held throughout England, and several hundred written responses received. Those responding to the consultation were broadly in favour of the budget, but made a wide range of detailed points.

  The final guidance, taking account of the responses to consultation, will be issued on 14 April, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The guidance will require applications for funding to be made to Government offices for the regions by 7 September 1994. Bidders will be encouraged to discuss their potential bids in outline with regional offices by the end of May 1994. It is intended that final decisions on the bid applications will be made known in early January 1995.

  New Forest
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received opposing the granting of national park status to the New Forest.

  Mr. Atkins
  Between 24 September 1992, when we published our consultation paper on our proposals for the future of the New Forest, and 8 April 1994 we have received 223 letters and a petition with three signatures opposing national park status for the New Forest.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations opposing the granting of national park status to the New Forest were initially mislaid by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department did not mislay any representations opposing the granting of national park status to the New Forest.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations opposing the granting of national park status to the New Forest he has received since January; and how many of these were printed pro-forma letters recommending an enhanced role for the verderers in the management of the New Forest.

  Mr. Atkins
  Between 1 January 1994 and 8 April, we have received 198 letters opposing the granting of national park status to the New Forest. Of these, 181 were printed pro-forma letters recommending an enhanced role for the verderers in the management of the New Forest.

  Retail Sites
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he is taking to ensure that the recent policy guidance in respect of out-of-town retail sites is not being avoided by planning application for such developments which are proposed under misleading descriptions; and if he will call in all such applications;

  (2) what action he will take to prevent the further expansion of retail sites in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our revised planning policy guidance note 6 "Town Centres and Retail Developments" sets out clear advice on the issues that local planning authorities, including development corporations, will need to take into account when considering planning applications for retail developments. Local planning authorities have adequate powers to obtain all the necessary information to enable them to make a decision. The Secretary of State expects local planning authorities to use those powers where necessary.

  Local planning authorities must notify the Secretary of State, under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) Direction 1992, of any applications which involve specified departures from the development plan. They are also required to notify the Secretary of State of certain proposals for retail development under the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) (No. 2) Direction 1993. If any local authority failed to notify the Secretary of State of a planning application subject to either of these directions, its decision could well be challenged in the courts.

  Proposals for the development of retail sites in South Yorkshire and elsewhere continue to be monitored under the provisions of these directions. The Secretary of State will consider calling-in any application for retail development which appears to conflict with published policy on the development of retail sites set out in planning policy guidance note 6 "Town Centres and Retail Developments" or otherwise raises issues of more than local importance.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish minerals planning guidance note 6 on planning guidance for aggregates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We are today publishing the revised mineral planning guidance note 6 on aggregates—MPG6—for England.

  To help achieve a more sustainable approach, we are reducing the landbank—the amount of land-won material, that is, sand and gravel, with planning consent at any one time—from 10 to seven years.

  An assured supply of aggregates for construction is a basic requirement of a healthy economy. But sustainable development means that we must reduce our very high dependence on primary aggregates and make more use of substitutes such as secondary and recycled material. We need to seek better patterns of supply and use of resources, and more environmentally acceptable ways of working mineral sites and restoring these sites once work has ceased.

  As a first step in achieving this, industry is being asked to reduce its dependence on land won aggregates from 83
  176
  to 68 per cent. by 2006. Provision of sand and gravel in the south-east will be 10 per cent. less than that envisaged for the same 15-year period in the current MPG6 guidelines, published in 1989. Industry is asked to increase its use of secondary and recycled materials by 100 per cent. To make clear that the Government are looking for early progress towards sustainable development, these guidelines will run to 2006 and not 2011 as assumed in the draft guidelines issued in January 1993.

  We are inviting industry to come forward with proposals on how these targets can be achieved and developed.

  We propose to establish, on a trial basis, a help line to provide practical advice to the industry on specifications and ways to increase the use of recycled and secondary materials in particular projects.

  As the construction and repair of roads consumes some 30 per cent. of all aggregates, my Department intends to conduct research, jointly with the Department of Transport, into how to increase the use of recycled and secondary materials in the construction and repair of roads.

  We will also be commissioning further research to enable monitoring and measurement of the progress towards the target set in MPG6.

  A copy of MPG6 has been placed in the House Library.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will lay before Parliament regulations to enable the introduction of waste management licensing under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, laid before Parliament today, will come into force on 1 May 1994, when the waste management licensing sections of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be commenced. The 1990 Act will then have replaced and updated most of the last generation of controls on waste under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In the case of the scrap metal industry, however, I propose that the new system should come into force on 1 October 1994. This is to give that industry further time to consider the implications of the new system and to make any representations; in the meanwhile, that industry will remain subject to the 1974 Act.

  The new waste management licensing system will bring real improvements and benefits, putting responsibility firmly on waste operators, empowering local authorities to act to prevent pollution, making more information available to the public and raising the standards of dealing with waste. At the same time, the new regulations are closely targeted on the potentially polluting operations that need control, and will remove unnecessary burdens and red tape from many small-scale activities and especially from many types of recycling.

  The regulations are the outcome of public consultations launched when draft regulations were published in August 1992 and continued since. In the light of those consultations, there has been extensive redrafting to meet the concerns and interests of industry, local authorities and the public. The regulations have also been revised to take account of European measures on waste regulation, including a new definition of waste consistent with the European definition.
  177
  The waste management licensing regulations will be complemented by the charging scheme, published on 24 March 1994, Official Report, columns 395–96, and by guidance in the form of a circular and two waste management papers. The guidance will, for the first time, be on a statutory footing. So this will give a clear signal to industry and to authorities as to the way in which the system is to operate.

  The new waste management licensing system will offer improved, clear, consistent, firm controls on waste. This will benefit the public, industry, local authorities and the environment. I know the waste industry welcomes this new system and I am confident that the waste regulators will use their stronger powers to secure environmental improvements.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further information he has made available to local authorities about standard spending assessments for 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  A publication, "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1994/95", has been produced to provide details of the standard spending assessment of each local authority. Copies have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also being sent to every local authority in England, and to the local authority associations.

  Alexander Fleming House
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the floor area in square feet of Alexander Fleming house; and what proportion of this is currently in use;

  (2) what is the annual cost of upkeep of Alexander Fleming house;

  (3) what is the current market value of Alexander Fleming house.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: Alexander Fleming house was formerly occupied by the Department of Health and is now vacant following rationalisation of the Department's London offices and relocation of staff to Leeds. The building has a net internal
  floor area of 272,000 sq ft and future maintenance and security costs are estimated to average £500,000 per annum. The current rent is £313,157 per annum—£1·15 per sq ft—which is payable up to expiry of the lease in 1997. The offices are unlettable in the current market owing to their age and obsolescence and discussions have been held with the freeholder, with a view to early surrender of the lease. So far, however, it has not proved possible to reach agreement on acceptable terms.

PRIME MINISTER

  Child Migrants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now meet representatives of the Child Migrant Trust to discuss the British child migrants scheme and Government policy towards former child migrants.
  178
  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy towards former child migrants was debated in the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member on 22 November 1993,Official Report, columns 301-8.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments hold personal files relating to individual child migrants and their families.

  The Prime Minister
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), gave details of the policy files held by the Department of Health and the Public Record Office in the Adjournment debate on 22 November 1993,Official Report, columns 305-6. No Government Department holds personal files relating to individual child migrants and their families.

  Voluntary Bodies
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total amount paid in grants by central Government Departments to voluntary bodies in the financial year 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Central Government funding of voluntary organisations in 1992–93 amounted to £3,925 million. Of this, £3,362 million was payments to housing associations and £563 million went directly to voluntary organisations to support the provision of services and a wide range of activities and projects. The latter figure shows that Government funding of the voluntary sector increased in cash terms by 15 per cent. and in real terms by 11 per cent. over the level of provision in 1991–92—£490 million. Between 1979–80 and 1992–93, the level of Government support for voluntary bodies has risen by 172 per cent. in real terms.

  The amount spent under individual departmental programmes in 1992–93 was as follows:

  £

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  209,248

  Defence

  16,555,426

  Education

  7,337,719

  Employment

  Direct grants

  35,452,818

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  22,000

  Environment (including Energy Efficiency Office)

  Direct grants

  25,542,597

  Urban programme

  51,700,000

  Housing corporations

  2,862,000,000

  Countryside Commission

  1,242,000

  English Nature

  621,000

  Rural Development Commission

  4,595,000

  Derelict land grant

  317,000

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2,697,820

  Overseas Development Administration

  147,426,026

  Health

  Direct grants

  52,138,716

  Health Education Authority

  2,450,755

  Home Office

  Direct grants

  50,596,492

  Commission for Racial Equality

  702,539

  National Heritage

  Direct grants

  566,808

  Sports Council

  14,535,000

  Northern Ireland Office

  Direct grants

  18,455,323

  Housing associations and societies

  57,404,589

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  658,037

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  1,357,803

  Scottish Office

  179

  £

  Direct grants

  25,674,985

  Urban programme

  46,618,000

  Housing associations

  260,000,000

  Scottish National Heritage

  1,360,000

  Highland and Islands Enterprise

  1,000,000

  Sports Council for Scotland

  1,527,694

  Social Security

  14,094,810

  Trade and Industry

  13,303,996

  Transport

  509,615

  Welsh Office

  Direct grants

  12,007,481

  Urban programme

  5,110,000

  Joint finance

  274,535

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  470,510

  Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru)—grants to housing associations

  182,323,223

  Sports Council for Wales and Play Wales Management Committee

  6,087,000

  GRAND TOTAL

  3,924,946,565

  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of voluntary bodies funded by the Government in 1992–93, other than those funded under housing programmes and the urban programme or via non-departmental public bodies.

  Ex-service Men
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with ex-service men's organisations regarding the proposed participation of former axis powers ex-service men's representatives at the 1995 50th anniversary commemorations of the ending of world war II or Remembrance day parades; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]: The commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the end of world war II will include a service in St. Paul's cathedral, a parade in central London, a lunch or dinner for visiting Heads of State and a number of other events throughout the country. Peace and reconciliation will feature strongly in themes for these events.

  The Ministry of Defence is leading the planning for the Government, but, at this early stage, no decision on the nature of the parade has been taken. The Ministry of Defence will consult a variety of appropriate organisations, including veterans' associations in the United Kingdom, over the content of the commemorations before final decisions are taken.

  There are, however, no plans for veterans' representatives from former axis powers to take part.

  Imports of sheep from Spain and Poland since 1 January 1994

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  (8)

  (9)

  Date of arrival at slaughterhouse

  Country of origin

  Point of departure

  Lairages on route

  Journey time1

  Number of sheep dead or recumbent

  Sheep deemed unfit for transit

  Carcases condemned:

  (a) Full

  (b) Partial

  17 February 1994

  Poland

  Sielinko, Brody, Paproc, Cicha Góra and Granowko

  Dover

  40¾ hours (25½ hours to Dover)

  3

  none

  none

  6

  8 March 1994

  Poland

  Cicha Góra and Gluponie

  Dover - several days stopover

  123½ hours (max 24 hours between staging posts)

  7

  4

  30

  39

  9 March 1994

  Poland

  Podale and Kielpino

  Belgium - several days stopover, and Petham, Kent

  Not determined

  none

  1

  18

  7

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the United Kingdom Government are taking to ensure the enforcement, within the European Union, of regulation 91/628, chapter 2, article 31B concerning the transport of live animals.

  Mr. Soames
  Each member state is required to bring into force the laws and administrative provisions necessary to implement directive 91/628 EEC. The directive is implemented in Great Britain through the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992. In the case of contraventions involving trade with other member states, the Government take the matter up as appropriate with the authorities concerned.

  Live Animals (Imports)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) of 18 March,Official Report, column 900, how many of the live sheep imported from Poland and Spain since 1 January were known to have given birth in transit or immediately on arrival in the United Kingdom;

  (2) how many sheep have been held back or destroyed at lairages as being unfit to travel onwards since 1 January 1994 after import from abroad.

  Mr. Soames
  Three sheep were found to have lambed in consignments imported from Spain and Poland and a further six were found to be close to lambing upon veterinary examination. A total of 32 sheep were detained in portal lairages as unfit to continue their journey. These were humanely destroyed.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will list the total consignments of animals destined for slaughter arriving from Poland or Spain since 1 January listing(a) the original point of departure of each consignment and (b) the points of lairage on route;

  (2) if she will give, for each consignment of animals destined for slaughter arriving from Poland or Spain since 1 January (a) the journey time for each stage of the journey, (b) the number of animals that were dead or recumbent on arrival in the United Kingdom, (c) the number that were deemed by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary inspectors to have been unfit for transit and (d) the total of carcases that were condemned by meat inspectors.

  Mr. Soames
  The information is given in the table.
  181

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  (8)

  (9)

  Date of arrival at slaughterhouse

  Country of origin

  Point of departure

  Lairages on route

  Journey time1

  Number of sheep dead or recumbent

  Sheep deemed unfit for transit

  Carcases condemned:

  (a) Full

  (b) Partial

  17 March 1994

  Poland

  Not recorded

  Belgium (several days stopover)

  14 hours (from Belgium)

  8

  none

  12

  16

  28 January 1994

  Spain

  Segovia

  Irun (Spain) and Southampton

  55½ hours (max 30 hours between staging posts

  1

  none

  3

  4

  15 February 1994

  Spain

  Segovia

  Bordeaux and Poitiers (France)

  57 hours (max 15 hours between staging posts)

  2

  none

  3

  4

  8 March 1994

  Spain

  Segovia

  Irun (Spain), Poitiers (France), Southampton

  66 hours (max 14 hours between staging posts)

  2

  none

  11

  23

  23 March 1994

  Spain

  Segovia

  Irun (Spain), Poitiers (France), Southampton

  78½ hours (max 11 hours between staging posts)

  4

  28

  11

  20

  1From place of departure, to destination, rest periods included.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the recently established Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew conservation group; and what funding will be made available.

  Mr. Jack
  The centre for plant conservation at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew incorporates elements from the body's former economic and conservation section, the living collections department, the Jodrell laboratory and seed bank. The centre's conservation activities include research, advice, and support to field programmes worldwide. It is funded mainly from the grant in aid provided annually by the Ministry to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the present initiative being pursued for Mauritius by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

  Mr. Jack
  The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew was invited to collaborate with the Government of Mauritius and the Mauritian wildlife appeal fund to review the needs for plant conservation on the islands of Rodrigues and Mauritius. The intention is to develop a habitat restoration programme to ensure the long-term survival of threatened habitats and plant species on the islands. In addition, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is a lead organisation in the production and editing of the "Flora of the Mascarenes" and is currently propagating a number of critically endangered species for future reintroduction.

  Lumpy Skin Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of lumpy skin disease occurred in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  There has never been a case of lumpy skin disease diagnosed in Great Britain.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 578, if she will list the 11 statutory
  182
  instruments affecting the food farming and fishing industries which have been rescinded and the 18 that have been retabled during the course of this Parliament.

  Mr. Jack
  The following statutory instruments rescinded or relaxed burdens imposed on the food, farming or fishing industries up to the end of February 1994:

  Revocations:

  The Sheep Scab (Revocation) Order 1992

  The Blue Eared Pig Disease (Revocation) Order 1992

  The Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dioxins) (England) No. 2 (Revocation) Order 1992

  The British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order 1993

  The Bananas (Interim Measures) (Revocation) Regulations 1993

  The Agriculture Act 1993 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1993

  The Diseases of Animals (Therapeutic Substances (Revocation) Order 1993

  The Poultry Laying Flocks Testing and Registration Etc. (Revocation) Order 1993

  The Foot and Mouth (Sera and Glandular Products) (Revocation) Order 1993

  The Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1993

  The Marek's Disease (Restrictions on Vaccination) (Revocation) Order 1994

  Relaxations:

  The Soft Drinks (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  The Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries Order 1993

  The Poultry Breeding Flocks, Hatcheries and Processed Animal Protein (Fees) Order 1993

  The Import (Plant Health Fees) (England and Wales) Order 1993

  The Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1993

  The Tuberculosis (Deer) (Amendment) Order 1993

  The Import of Bovine Semen (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  The Sea Fish Licensing (Variation) (No. 2) Order 1993

  The Fodder Plant Seeds (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  The Seeds (Registration, Licensing and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  The Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  The Local Fisheries Committees (Fees for Copy Byelaws) Order 1993

  The Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1993

  Sea Fisheries (Conservation of Sea Fish) The Undersized Lobsters Order 1993

  The Fresh Meat and Poultry Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examinations for Residues) (Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  The Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  The Importation of Bees (Amendment) Order 1993

  183

  The Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (England) (Partial Revocation) Order 1994

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 12 April; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 12 April in Luxembourg, together with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office.

  The major issue before the Council was a proposal arising from the Act of accession for Spain and Portugal. The Act requires that the provision for the Irish box must end at 31 December 1995. In addition, the Council can adopt any necessary changes in the light of a review of the operation of the provisions of the Act. Any changes decided on have to apply from 1 January 1996.

  As the House knows, the Council has been addressing the issues raised by the terms of the Act at successive meetings since June 1993. At its meeting yesterday, the Council concluded the first stage of this work by adopting by qualified majority a presidency compromise proposal on the procedure to be followed for amending the current arrangements applying to Spanish and Portuguese access to the waters of the other member states. It sets out in legal form the principles to guide the Commission and the Council in settling the detailed provisions.

  The regulation ensures that no changes can be made to the current rules governing Spanish and Portuguese fishing until the replacement arrangements have been set out and agreed by the Council. All the changes will have to conform to the key principles of relative stability and no increase in fishing effort. In formulating the changes, the Commission will also have to provide specifically for sensitive zones, in particular to take account of the need to balance resources and the fishing effort deployed. The area of the Irish box is noted as such a zone where fishing effort will need to be closely monitored and any necessary measures taken.

  Another issue which is of particular concern to United Kingdom fishermen is the position regarding areas in which Spain and Portugal are currently not allowed to fish, such as the North sea. There is no obligation on the Commission to make any proposals for access to these areas. But if it does, access can only be given to stocks not currently subject to total allowable catches and would have to be on the basis of track records in a recent and representative period. Spain and Portugal have had no track record in the North sea since the date of their accession. This is a satisfactory outcome which fully protects the interests of the British fishing industry and provides a sound basis for the detailed negotiations over the coming months.

  The Commission tabled a report on the ecological impact of drift netting, together with a proposal. The Council had a first discussion on the issues raised, including a suggestion that a derogation for use of drift nets longer than 2.5 km should be reintroduced. I made clear my firm opposition to this and the importance I attach to taking environmental implications fully into account. The
  184
  derogation was not renewed. These matters will now be considered by experts taking into account the scientific evidence.

  The Council discussed the current difficulties in the European fish market. Although no single factor was identified as the underlying cause, there was widespread agreement that an important part of the present difficulties is due to structural factors, notably the continuing imbalance between fishing effort and fish resources. The Commission has undertaken to prepare a full analysis of all the elements affecting the market for consideration by the Council at its next meeting in June.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority a regulation on direct landings by third country fishing vessels, subjecting them to the same rules as member states' fishing vessels, notably in relation to existing hygiene controls, and to some aspects of the market regime. The market regime provisions will not apply to fish for processing or to landings by European Economic Area vessels. The United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands voted against the regulation because of reservations about its practicality.

  The Council also agreed autonomous tariff reductions for certain annual quotas of whitefish imports.

  Fruit
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what occasions and in respect of which companies and products the United Kingdom Government have not followed a directive from the European Community concerning fruit or fruit products.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]The United Kingdom has not yet amended its national legislation implementing EC Council directive 93/77 to take account of EC Commission directive 93/45 concerning the manufacturer of fruit nectars without the addition of sugar.

  However, enforcement authorities are aware of the requirements of directive 93/45 and will take this into account in their enforcement action. The United Kingdom implementing legislation will be amended to take account of directive 93/45 at the earliest opportunity.

TRANSPORT

  Tamar Road Crossing
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy on the second Tamar road crossing project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The consultants who undertook a study of a feasibility of the new Tamar crossing advised that a new crossing is likely to be needed by the turn of the century if unacceptable congestion is to be avoided. Their report was published in June 1993 and comments were invited on the four possible routes which had been identified.

  I am considering the responses to the consultation before deciding if, when and how the proposal for a new Tamar crossing should be taken forward.

  Car Parking
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations apply to the parking of tax-exempt private vehicles on off-street local authority parking sites.
  185
  Mr. Key
  It is entirely for individual local authorities to decide which classes of vehicle may use any off-street car parks they provide, and to determine the terms and conditions under which they may do so.

  London Taxis
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement about London taxi fares and fees.

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has made an order increasing London taxi fares by about 2·88 per cent. on average with effect from Saturday 23 April 1994. The new tariff will incorporate a minimum fare of £1—including an unchanged hire charge of 60p—for the first 564 yds or 114 seconds. The rate will then be 20p for every 282 yds or 57 seconds up to six miles and 20p for each 188 yds or 38 seconds thereafter.

  The Secretary of State has decided that there will be no increase this year in the fees for London taxi driver and vehicle licences, currently £87 and £78 respectively.

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce the line of his Department's preferred route for the A38 trunk road improvement between Saltash and Trerulefoot.

  Mr. Key
  I expect to announce our preferred route for this scheme shortly.

  Permanent Secretary
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide details of the basic salary of the permanent secretary within his Department and the performance pay arrangements under which he operates.

  Mr. Norris
  The permanent secretary is paid £95,051 per annum with effect from 1 April 1994. There is no performance pay scheme for permanent secretaries.

  Railway Station Staff
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are currently employed as station staff by British Rail; and how many were so employed in(a) 1990, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not readily available in the form requested, but the number of staff employed in stations, yards and depots is as follows:

  Number

  31 December 1980

  25,148

  31 March 1985

  19,941

  31 March 1990

  17,039

  26 February 1994

  12,765

  Aircraft Movements (Cardiff)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the likely consequences for aircraft movements from Cardiff, Wales airport of the negotiations regarding access for American passenger aircraft to Heathrow.
  186
  Mr. Norris
  We do not foresee any material effect on aircraft movements at Cardiff, Wales airport arising directly from any changes which might be agreed in access for American passenger aircraft to Heathrow. However, it is possible that, as part of wider negotiations with the United States over liberalisation of air services, existing opportunities for United Kingdom and United States airlines to mount charter services between Cardiff and the United States and for United Kingdom airlines to mount a scheduled service could be supplemented by additional opportunities for United States carriers to offer scheduled services. It would be for the commercial judgment of the airlines whether to operate such services.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, columns 761-62, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department in each of the last five years and the number of contracts each has undertaken.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]I am placing the information in the Library.

  London, Tilbury and Southend Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, concerning daily flows of rail passengers on the London, Tilbury and Southend line to Fenchurch Street what is (a) the approximate number of passengers carried in trains departing from Barking for Fenchurch Street on a normal weekday between the hours 0700 and 10.00, irrespective of their boarding stations, (b) the best estimate available of the number of passengers departing westbound on the District line from Barking, between those hours and (c) the numbers of passengers joining westbound District line trains between Barking and Bow Road between those hours; and what assessment he has made of the total effect of withdrawing all main line trains between Barking and Fenchurch Street between 22 July and 5 September next.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The London, Tilbury and Southend—LT and S —line currently carries 22,000 passengers on all its services into London during the peak hours of 07·00 to 10·00.

  (b) London Underground Ltd.—LUL—says that in 1990, 4,300 passengers boarded westbound District and Hammersmith and City lines trains at Barking between 07·00 and 10·00 am each weekday.

  (c) The same survey showed that the number of passengers on westbound district line trains between Barking and Bow Road during the morning peak were as follows:

  Number

  Barking—East Ham

  14,900

  East Ham—Upton Park

  21,600

  Upton Park—Plaistow

  26,200

  Plaistow—West Ham

  30,400

  West Ham—Bromley-by-Bow

  30,600

  Bromley-by-Bow—Bow Road

  31,300

  187
  LT and S management have made the following assessments and arrangements.

  The temporary timetable, which will be in operation during the closure of Fenchurch Street will provide 16,300 seats into Liverpool Street. Although, due to limited track and platform capacity, it will not be possible to run extra Great Eastern trains into Liverpool Street, additional capacity will also be provided on Great Eastern services form Southend Victoria and Colchester, and it is expected that some LT and S passengers will travel from Upminster to Romford in order to connect with these services. Passengers at the eastern end of the route will be encouraged to use Great Eastern services.

  Passenger numbers are traditionally reduced by 13 per cent. during the summer period and LT and S management estimate that this will rise to 20 per cent. during the closure of Fenchurch Street.

  LT and S management estimate that the maximum number of passengers needing to transfer to LUL services for onward travel by tube is in the range of 1,300 to 2,800, and LUL has been advised accordingly. In addition to its normal services, starting in May, LUL will provide an extra four trains an hour during the peak period on the Hammersmith and City line from Barking.

  By diverting many LT and S trains into Liverpool Street, it is hoped that the effect of withdrawing mainline trains into Fenchurch Street will be minimised and every effort is being made to advise passengers of their alternatives before 22 July. Additional staff will be on hand at Barking to assist with passenger transfers, and LT and S management are continuing to work with local rail user groups to offer the best possible service during the closure.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage, which was established on 13 April 1992, has contracted out operational support for the Department computer users and systems to Sema Group through open competition. The Department has employed consultants from Sema Group to support the development of Departmental information systems—IS—and assist in the procurement of a number of system solutions. Consultancy support from CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, has also been used to assist in procurement and the development of the Departmental IS strategy. The cost of consultancy support was £140,000 in 1992–93 and £38,000 in 1993–94.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 460, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department in each of the last five years and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  Mr. Sproat
  The consultants used and numbers of contracts awarded by my Department since it was established in April 1992 and its two executive agencies are listed in the table, together with the start date for each contract. My answer on 25 March did not include the 188
  number of consultancies awarded by the two agencies, although the costs given did include the agencies' expenditure. The total number of contracts awarded is 110.

  Consultant's name

  Number of contracts awarded

  Start date

  Accord Group—TYZACK

  1

  March 1993

  ADAS

  1

  December 1992

  AIBS

  1

  October 1992

  Ajax Health and Safety

  1

  April 1992

  Alan Rhodes Associates

  1

  October 1992

  Alter Ego

  1

  April 1993

  Baker, Wilkins and Smith

  1

  April 1992

  John Barnes

  1

  May 1993

  BDM Limited

  2

  December 1992

  April 1993

  Bedford Timber Preservation

  1

  January 1993

  BMRB International

  1

  June 1993

  Brenda White Associates

  1

  February 1993

  Capita Management Consultancy Ltd.

  1

  February 1993

  CCTA

  2

  June 1993

  August 1993

  Cluttons

  3

  January 1993

  March 1993

  Communication by Design Limited

  1

  September 1992

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1

  July 1993

  Crane Davies Limited

  1

  July 1993

  Cumbria Tourist Board

  3

  February 1993

  February 1993

  February 1993

  Drivas Jones

  1

  July 1993

  Engineering Surveys Limited

  2

  July 1992

  September 1993

  Ernst and Young

  4

  July 1992

  January 1993

  October 1993

  January 1994

  Derek Etherington

  1

  July 1991

  Feilden and Mawson

  1

  April 1992

  Fitch

  1

  June 1992

  P. Flaxman

  1

  January 1993

  Food Services Associates (Henley) Limited

  1

  December 1992

  GAH Limited

  1

  August 1992

  Lawrence Graham

  1

  1993

  David Greaves

  1

  June 1992

  Halcrow Fox

  2

  November 1992

  July 1993

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  1

  December 1992

  HH&S Limited

  1

  May 1992

  Humberts Leisure Limited

  1

  June 1992

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  1

  March 1993

  J. M. Consulting Limited

  1

  May 1993

  David Jacques

  1

  April 1993

  John Herbert Partnership

  1

  September 1992

  September

  Kennedy and Donkin

  1

  1993

  Korn Ferry International

  1

  March 1993

  KPMG

  6

  1992–93

  1992–93

  1992–93

  February 1993

  September 1993

  February 1994

  Land Use Consultants

  1

  April 1992

  Library and Information Co-operation Council

  1

  March 1993

  Light Projects

  1

  March 1993

  Lowe Bell Communications

  1

  January 1994

  Mason

  1

  August 1993

  MEW Research

  1

  June 1993

  Moon Communications

  1

  April 1993

  National Economic Research

  1

  April 1993

  Associators/Mercer Management

  Consultants/PA Consultants

  Naylor Conservation

  1

  December 1993

  North West Tourist Board

  2

  December 1992

  189

  Consultant's name

  Number of contracts awarded

  Start date

  February 1993

  Northamptoshire Archaelogical Unit

  1

  January 1993

  Number Market Research Limited

  1

  June 1992

  PA Consultants

  2

  July 1992

  July 1993

  William Page

  1

  1992–93

  Paper White Design Consultants

  1

  April 1993

  PE International

  3

  August 1992

  October 1992

  May 1993

  Peter Morley Associates Limited

  1

  March 1993

  Donald Piggott

  1

  October 1992

  Positive Solutions

  1

  August 1993

  Price Waterhouse

  3

  May 1992

  October 1992

  February 1993

  Pringle Brandon

  1

  December 1993

  Research International

  1

  December 1993

  RM Consultants Limited

  1

  December 1993

  RMJM and Caroe and Partners

  1

  April 1992

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  1

  February 1993

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  1

  February 1993

  Royston Brown

  1

  May 1992

  Search Training International Limited

  1

  December 1992

  Sema Group Systems Limited

  3

  All in 1993

  Stoy Hayward

  1

  December 1993

  August 1992 and August

  John Sumsion

  1

  1993

  Symonds

  1

  July 1992

  TA Consultancy

  1

  July 1993

  Tectus

  1

  May 1992

  The Conservation Practice

  1

  April 1992

  The Jenkins Group

  1

  May 1993

  Thesaurus

  1

  April 1992

  January and

  Touche Ross

  2

  June 1993

  Towers Perrin

  1

  January 1993

  University of Cambridge

  1

  January 1993

  University of London

  1

  January 1993

  Vital Statistics Limited

  1

  March 1993

  Warrington Fire Research

  1

  April 1992

  Phase 1—

  September

  1992 and Phase

  2—December

  Watts and Partners

  1

  1993

  WLF Pierce and Partners

  1

  July 1993

  Yorks and Humberside Tourist Board

  1

  February 1993

  Total

  110

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage, which was established on 13 April 1992, has introduced a personal computer-based office automation system, mainly for word processing, and a Library management system. The Department also uses computer services provided by the Accounts Service Agency and has introduced systems to support correspondence tracking, the handling of registered files, and responses to parliamentary questions. An on-line telephone directory has also been developed.190
  The cost of all computer systems was£730,000in 1992–93 and £950,000in 1993–94. All the computer systems brought in by the Department are still in use.

  Broadcasting Directive
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he has been notified by the Commission of the European Union of the action it intends to initiate in the European Court against the United Kingdom on the broadcasting directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  We have been notified that the Commission has decided to open proceedings against the United Kingdom in the European Court of Justice over the way in which we have implemented article 2 of the "television without frontiers" directive. Under section 43 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the criterion for deciding whether satellite television services fall within United Kingdom jurisdiction is the place where the broadcasting signals are uplinked. The Commission argues that the appropriate criterion is the place where the broadcaster is established. This difference of approach does not, however, appear to have been of any practical significance in terms of our ability to take action against unacceptable services.

  Central Council for Physical Recreation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what proportion of the annual revenue of the Central Council for Physical Recreation is spent on salaries and running costs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much revenue the Central Council for Physical Recreation obtained in subscriptions from its member organisations in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Central Council of Physical Recreation is not a Government body and I am not, therefore, able to provide this information.

EMPLOYMENT

  Dounreay
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to how the clothing of a German visitor to the nuclear power station in Dounreay in March became radioactive; what was the cause of this incident; what was the cost of supplying alternative clothing; and on how many other occasions this has occurred.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There was no such incident in March 1994. An incident was reported on 25 September 1985; a radiation monitor detected contamination on the clothing of a German visitor; this had resulted from spillage of radio-iodine in the visitor's workplace in Germany. This incident was fully reported at the time.

  Small Armaments Systems
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest employment figures for those manufacturing small armaments systems in the United Kingdom.
  191
  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information is from the 1991 Great Britain and Northern Ireland censuses of employment. Employment figures have been taken from the 1980 standard industrial classification activity heading 3290 which covers ordnance, small arms, ammunition and tracked armoured fighting vehicles. The estimated number of employees in employment in the activity in the United Kingdom at September 1991 was 13,500.

  Part-time Workers
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action the Government are intending to take to implement the House of Lords ruling that the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is in breach of European Union laws in discriminating against women because of its treatment of part-time workers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are carefully considering this judgment to ascertain its full implications and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Training Providers Cost Survey
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the 1992 training providers cost survey commissioned by his Department from Coopers and Lybrand; and if he will state the reason for not publishing it at the time he received it.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 1992 survey of training provider costs was undertaken to assess the costs to training providers of delivering youth training and employment training and to give the Government information about value for money achieved with taxpayers' money. The training and enterprise councils —TECs—and training providers which participated in the survey were given an assurance that all the information collected would be treated as confidential. As the information is commercially sensitive and could inappropriately influence negotiations between TECs and training providers it remains confidential to TECs and Employment Department management.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the expenditure on youth training in Great Britain, in cash terms and in 1993–94 prices in each year since 1989–90; and what is the expected outturn for 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Youth training Actual expenditure 1989–90 to 1992–93 expected outturn for 1993–94, Great Britain

  £ million

  1989–90

  Cash

  976·0

  Real terms

  1,202·4

  1990–91

  Cash

  823·4

  Real terms

  938·7

  1991–92

  Cash

  846·8

  Real terms

  907·9

  192

  £ million

  1992–93

  Cash

  760·4

  Real terms

  785·1

  1993–94

  Cash

  772·1

  Note:

  1989–90 relates to youth training scheme, 1990–91 onwards relates to youth training and credits. Excludes administration/running costs.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the expenditure on training for work employment training and its predecessors and employment action in Great Britain in cash terms and in 1993–94 prices in each year since 1989–90; and what is the expected outturn for 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Training for work, employment training and its predecessors and employment action

  Actual expenditure 1989–90 to 1992–93 and expected outturn for 1993–94, Great Britain

  £ million

  Employment training

  Employment action

  Training for work

  Total

  1989–90

  Cash

  1,096·6

  —

  —

  1,096·6

  Real terms

  1,350·9

  —

  —

  1,350·9

  1990–91

  Cash

  1,072·4

  —

  —

  1,072·4

  Real terms

  1,222·6

  —

  —

  1,222·6

  1991–92

  Cash

  830·8

  16·3

  —

  847·1

  Real terms

  890·7

  17·5

  —

  908·2

  1992–93

  Cash

  777·4

  148·9

  —

  926·3

  Real terms

  802·7

  153·7

  —

  956·4

  1993–94

  Cash

  —

  —

  907·8

  907·8

  Note:

  Excludes administration-running costs.

  Training for work is one of a wide range of options open to unemployed people. The Employment Department group offered a record total of 1·5 million opportunities in 1993–94 to help unemployed people back into work.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people have participated in work trials in 1993 in each region and for Great Britain as a whole; and how many participants have secured full-time or part-time employment with their sponsoring employer;

  (2) how many unemployed people have taken part in the job interview guarantee scheme in each region in each quarter of 1993; and how many secured full-time or part-time employment with their sponsoring employer.
  193
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 13 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions to him about Work Trials and Job Interview Guarantee.
  You asked how many unemployed people have taken part in these schemes in each region in 1993 and how many participants have secured full or part-time employment with the sponsoring employer. The information is set out by region in the attached tables. The figures provided show totals of clients placed into full and part-time work as we do not collect this information separately.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Work trials—Number of clients participating and placed into jobs during 1993

  Number of participants January—December 1993

  Number of clients placed January—December 1993

  Northern region

  541

  322

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  733

  441

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  1,088

  696

  London and South East region

  2,961

  1,589

  South West region

  618

  359

  Office for Wales

  568

  347

  West Midlands region

  773

  470

  North West region

  1,661

  1,091

  Office for Scotland

  1,457

  952

  National

  10,400

  6,267

  Job interview guarantee—Number of clients assisted and placed into jobs during 1993

  Number of clients assisted January—March 1993

  Number of clients placed January—March 1993

  Northern region

  2,811

  827

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  4,330

  1,319

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  3,214

  918

  London and South East region

  15,259

  5,267

  South West region

  7,872

  2,514

  Office for Wales

  4,773

  1,663

  West Midlands region

  4,602

  1,759

  North West region

  5,051

  1,837

  Office for Scotland

  3,820

  2,557

  National

  51,732

  18,661

  Job interview guarantee—Number of clients assisted and placed into jobs during 1993

  Number of clients assisted April—June 1993

  Number of clients placed April—June 1993

  Northern region

  4,940

  1,490

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  14,107

  3,806

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  4,954

  2,090

  London and South East region

  26,184

  10,421

  South West region

  7,434

  3,367

  Office for Wales

  5,884

  2,613

  West Midlands region

  5,156

  2,688

  North West region

  11,254

  4,874

  Office for Scotland

  6,058

  4,672

  National

  85,971

  36,021

  194

  Job interview guarantee—Number of clients assisted and placed into jobs during 1993

  Number of clients assisted July—September 1993

  Number of clients placed July—September 1993

  Northern region

  7,616

  2,344

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  20,348

  6,137

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  5,744

  1,743

  London and South East region

  32,500

  12,916

  South West region

  8,746

  3,628

  Office for Wales

  6,696

  2,928

  West Midlands region

  9,926

  4,032

  North West region

  13,253

  6,278

  Office for Scotland

  7,697

  5,045

  National

  112,526

  45,051

  Job interview guarantee—Number of clients assisted and placed into jobs during 1993

  Number of clients assisted October—December 1993

  Number of clients placed October—December 1993

  Northern region

  4,824

  1,911

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  17,134

  5,569

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  7,633

  2,951

  London and South East region

  28,916

  13,453

  South West region

  8,352

  3,190

  Office for Wales

  5,236

  2,687

  West Midlands region

  8,212

  4,828

  North West region

  11,324

  5,782

  Office for Scotland

  6,399

  4,828

  National

  98,030

  45,199

EDUCATION

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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. Forth
  Over the last five financial years, capital expenditure by the Department on computer systems has been:

  £ million

  1989–90

  2·0

  1990–91

  2·0

  1991–92

  1·8

  1992–93

  0·9

  1993–94

  0·3

  I am sending the hon. Member details of the systems installed, their function and current use.

  Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information technology consultants his Department has employed in each of the last five years; for what purpose; and at what total cost.
  195
  Mr. Forth
  Over the last five financial years, expenditure by the Department on information technology consultants has been:

  £

  1989–90

  685,416

  1990–91

  610,200

  1991–92

  518,887

  1992–93

  571,000

  1993–94

  674,690

  I am sending the hon. Member a detailed list of the firms of consultants employed and the purpose of the consultancies.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the expenditure by local education authorities in the United Kingdom on discretionary awards and any other forms of support for students in the further education sector in each of the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what information he has on how much local education authorities are planning to spend for this purpose in 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local education authority returns to my Department show that expenditure on discretionary awards for further education in England and Wales was £163·9 million in 1991–92 academic year and £169·3 million—provisional—in 1992–93. Their returns for 1993–94 are not yet available. It is for LEAs to decide how much to spend on discretionary awards in 1994–94: they do not provide the Department with information on their plans.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state for each school for which he has approved for grant-maintained status since 1 January 1993 the(a) number of pupils attending the school at the time of approval and (b) the pupil capacity of the school.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information held by the Department showing the number of pupils on roll and the school capacity has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to publish or to instruct the Electoral Reform Society to publish the result of every grant-maintained ballot.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. It is for each governing body to decide how best to inform parents of the result and whether to publicise it more widely.

  Camberwell Child Guidance Centre
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which organisations will take over the responsibilities of the education staff of the Camberwell child guidance centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Education staff of the Camberwell child guidance centre were supported by the Southwark local education authority which decided, after consultations with schools, to discontinue the funding after March 1994. I am informed that the staff concerned took voluntary 196
  severance. These are matters for the authority: the Department cannot intervene. I understand that the psychiatric service for children and young people in the area is to be reviewed by Southwark's joint community care planning group for children over the next six months.

  Discretionary Awards
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his response to the report on local education authorities' provision of discretionary awards published recently by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

  Mr. Boswell
  I welcome this report. It contains much useful information. It is a matter of regret that LEAs were not able to provide more. The overall position is by no means as gloomy as some had predicted but there are striking differences between LEAs' policies—differences which it is hard to justify on general educational grounds. I will want to give the report careful consideration before deciding what action may be necessary. I expect LEAs will also want to consider what needs to be done.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will lay before Parliament the draft code of practice giving practical guidance in respect of the discharge by local education authorities and the governing bodies of maintained schools of their functions under part III of the Education Act 1993.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales are today laying before both Houses a draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, as required under section 158 of the Education Act 1993.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I signed last week the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994 and the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1994. These regulations are also being laid today. They have been made under powers provided by part III of the Education Act 1993 and underpin the draft code of practice.

  Subject to Parliament's approval of the draft code, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education intends to publish a booklet entitled "Special Educational Needs: A Guide for Parents". This will give parents a clear explanation of how they can secure help if they believe their child has special educational needs. Copies of a draft of the guide are being placed in the Libraries. A similar guide will be prepared for issue in Wales.

  My right hon. Friend is placing in the Libraries illustrative mock-ups of the proposed final design of the code of practice and the guide for parents. All the documents presented to Parliament today—the draft code of practice, the regulations and the draft guide for parents —are being made available to the Education Select Committee, the all-party disablement group and the all-party children group.

  Consultation Documents
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all the documents currently issued for consultation in the last year.
  197
  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]The information is as follows. The list includes only those documents that have gone out to a substantial number of recipients as part of a formal consultation exercise. It does not include consultation documents issued by non-departmental public bodies on matters which fall within their responsibility.

  Schools Organisation:

  Circular 6/93 (Admissions to Maintained Schools);

  leaflet—"Your Child's Next School—A Guide to Secondary Admissions";

  1994 version of Code of Practice on Appeals for grant-maintained schools;

  The Education (Lay Members of Appeal Committees) Regulations 1994;

  draft Circular letter on the implementation of Section 260 of the Education Act 1993.

  School Performance, Inspection:

  Education (Registered Inspectors of Schools Appeal Tribunal) Regulations;

  contents of prospectuses as set out in the Education (School Information) Regulations 1993;

  Circular 4/93 (The Parent's Charter: Publication of Information about Secondary School Performance in 1993);

  Circular 5/93 (The Parent's Charter: Publication of Information about Primary School Performance in 1993).

  Schools: Special Educational Needs

  draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (including draft regulations on assessments and statements);

  SEN Tribunal (Consultation Paper on draft regulations and rules of procedure);

  'Pupils with Problems' (draft Circulars on 'pupil behaviour and discipline'; the education of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties; 'exclusions from school'; 'the education of children by LEAs otherwise than at school'; 'the education of sick children'; and 'the education of children being looked after by local authorities');

  draft Circular on the organisation of special educational provision (including draft regulations on schools' policies on special educational needs and on provisions by LEAs of special educational needs support services);

  draft Circular on the development of special schools (including draft regulations on LEA-maintained special schools, grant-maintained special schools, non-maintained special schools, and independent schools catering for children with special educational needs).

  Schools funding and government

  Circular 2/94—Local Management of Schools

  The Education (School Financial Statements) (Prescribed Particulars etc) Regulations 1994;

  The Education (Financial Delegation to Schools) (Mandatory Exceptions) Regulations 1994;

  The Education (Significant Variations of Schemes for Financing Schools) Order 1993;

  The Education (Publication of Schemes for Financing Schools) Regulations 1993;

  The Education (Application of Financing Schemes to Special Schools) Regulations 1993;

  The Education (Acquisition of Grant-maintained Status) (Transitional Functions) Regulations 1993;

  Circular 18/93—Education Act 1993: Grant-Maintained Schools: Acquisition, transfer and Governance (and associated regulations);

  Guidance to promoters on establishing new Self-Governing (Grant-maintained) Schools under section 49 of the Education Act 1993;

  The Education (School Government) (Amendment) Regulations 1993;

  The Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Initial Governing Instruments) Regulations 1993;

  198

  The Education (Governors of New Grant-maintained Schools) Regulations 1994;

  consultation paper on arrangements for calculating annual maintenance grant for self-governing (grant-maintained) schools;

  two consultation papers on the development of a Common Funding Formula for funding self-governing (grant-maintained) schools;

  The Education (School Inspection) (No. 2) Regulations 1993;

  Circular 17/93: Schools Requiring Special Measures;

  The Education (Schools Conducted by Education Associations) Regulations 1993;

  The Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Loans) Regulations 1993;

  The Education (Special Schools Conducted by Education Associations) 1994;

  The Education (Schools Conducted by Education Associations) (Initial Articles of Government) (Amendment) Regulations 1994.

  Schools—miscellaneous

  The Education Assets Board (Transfers under the Education Reform Act 1988) (Amendment) Regulations 1993;

  draft Circular: School Transport;

  draft Circular on local authority Education Committees;

  draft guidance on Safety in Outdoor Education;

  draft Circular: the Use of School Premises and the Incorporation of Governing Bodies of LEA-maintained schools;

  draft Circular: Proceeds of Sale of Assets Taken into Account when Building Grant is paid to Voluntary-aided and Special Agreement Schools;

  two draft Circulars on sex education;

  School Attendance (Policy and Practice on the Categorisation of Absence);

  draft regulations on money following the permanently excluded pupil;

  draft regulations and Order on imposing time limits on exclusions procedures;

  draft regulations on Pupil Referral Units.

  Teachers and Teacher Training:

  The Government's Proposals for the Reform of Initial Teacher Training;

  draft Circular: The Initial Training of Primary School Teachers;

  Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 2)

  Order, with School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1993 and draft Circular on School teachers' Pay and Conditions of Employment;

  Education (Teachers) (Amendment) Regulations;

  Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1994;

  Science and Maths: a consultation paper on the supply and demand of newly qualified young people;

  draft Circular: the physical and mental fitness to teach of teachers and entrants to initial teacher training.

  Further Education

  consultation document on arrangements for publication by colleges of information about students' achievements and career routes;

  draft Charter for Further Education.

  Higher Education

  draft Charter for Higher Education;

  Proposals for the reform of student unions:

  Consultation Note 1: Core Services

  Consultation Note 2: Code of Practice for Campus Student Unions.

  European Union

  EC Commission Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position with regard to the supply of humanitarian aid to Angola; which British-based relief organisations are working there; and if they are able to continue their work with reasonable security.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have now allocated almost £20 million of humanitarian aid to Angola since the United Nations international appeal in June 1993. This includes our share of comparable EC aid. Several British based non-governmental organisations—NGOs—including Save the Children Fund, CARE, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Concern and OXFAM are active in Angola and doing a very good job. We are providing £2 million of our assistance through NGOs. In spite of continued fighting in some parts of Angola, the NGOs are expanding their operations in relative safety. We are monitoring the situation closely.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to appoint a non-governmental organisations co-ordinator in Somaliland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA's non-governmental organisations liaison and support officer was appointed on 28 March. He is currently in Addis Ababa undertaking a briefing programme prior to moving to Hargeisa.

  Table 1

  Deaths from definite and probable CJD 1989 to 1993 (England and Wales)

  Region

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  North East Thames

  2

  3

  2

  2

  —

  9

  North West Thames

  2

  —

  2

  3

  2

  9

  South East Thames

  4

  2

  2

  1

  —

  9

  South West Thames

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  7

  North Western

  2

  1

  3

  6

  3

  15

  Mersey

  4

  —

  —

  4

  —

  8

  South Western

  1

  2

  1

  4

  4

  12

  Northern

  1

  1

  1

  5

  2

  10

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  3

  4

  1

  10

  Yorkshire

  1

  3

  3

  1

  1

  9

  Trent

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  9

  Oxford

  1

  3

  4

  —

  3

  11

  East Anglian

  —

  2

  —

  3

  1

  6

  Wessex

  1

  —

  2

  2

  3

  8

  Wales

  1

  2

  2

  5

  2

  11

  Special Has

  —

  2

  3

  1

  1

  7

  Total

  24

  26

  31

  44

  26

  151

  Table 2

  Notification of definite and probable CJD May 1990 to 1993 (England and Wales)

  19901

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Totals

  Notified before death

  1-10 days

  5

  11

  4

  6

  11-20 days

  1

  3

  11

  3

  21 days

  3

  4

  14

  7

  Total

  9

  18

  29

  16

  72

  Notified after death

  6

  13

  15

  10

  44

HEALTH

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list by regional health authority how many people have died each year from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in each of the past five years;

  (2) if she will list by regional health authority the dates and locations of each death from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease over the past five years, and the respective date on which her Department's Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance units were first notified of each suspected case; and if she will set out the reasons for notification not being provided earlier in those cases where notification had not been given before death.

  Mr. Sackville
  Table 1 shows deaths from definite and probable Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—CJD—in England and Wales from 1989 to 1993 by regional health authority. This includes sporadic, familial and iatrogenic CJD, but excludes the small number of cases of Gerstmann-Straussler syndrome.

  Dates and locations of death have not been given. CJD is a very rare disease, and this information could make it possible to identify individual patients.

  Reporting of CJD cases before death started in May 1990 when the CJD unit was established. Figures are given in table 2. The unit does not collect information about why some cases are reported after death.
  201

  19901

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Totals

  Total number of cases

  15

  31

  44

  26

  116

  1May to December.

  NHS Nursing Staff
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of unqualified NHS nursing staff joining the NHS in each year since 1990, who were(a) joining directly after completing full-time education, (b) aged under 21 years, (c) joining from other NHS units, (d) joining from other care sector employment, (e) joining from other employment, (f) joining from non-activity in the labour market and (g) joining from unemployment.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 21 June 1993 at columns 29-31 for the latest available information.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  31993

  a. Newly qualified student nurses with employed status

  Numbers

  n/a

  n/a

  11,610

  15,480

  WTE

  n/a

  n/a

  16,260

  15,690

  b. Newly qualified project 2000 students

  Numbers

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  1—

  WTE

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  1—

  c. Registered nurses entering the NHS after a period of unemployment

  Numbers

  n/a

  n/a

  2,050

  1,490

  WTE

  n/a

  n/a

  1,530

  1,220

  d. Joined NHS units directly after being employed by another NHS Unit

  Numbers

  21,600

  18,490

  2—

  2—

  WTE

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  2—

  e. Joined NHS units directly after being employed in nursing

  Numbers

  6,790

  5,350

  n/a

  n/a

  WTE

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  1It is not possible to separately identify newly qualified staff previously with employed status from those who had been Project 2000 students.

  2It is not possible to identify these staff due to definitional problems regarding transfers. Figures appear inflated due to the recording (in some regions) of movements within the regions.

  3Where provided numbers for 1993 are based on returns from 11 regions whole time equivalents are based on returns from 12.

  Figures for 1992 are based on returns from 12 regions.

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of medical negligence claims involving national health service bodies for each year since 1990 in each medical specialty.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Invalidity Benefit Tribunals
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given to family health service authorities or advice to general practitioners(a) who are requested to produce reports for invalidity benefit tribunals and (b) regarding charging patients for medical reports to be submitted to invalidity benefit tribunals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Midwives
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of qualified or midwifery staff joining the NHS in each year since 1990, who(a) were newly qualifying student nurses with employed status, (b) were newly qualifying Project 2000 students, (c) were registered nurses entering the NHS after a period of non-employment, (d) joined NHS units directly after being employed by another NHS unit and (e) joined NHS units directly after being employed in other nursing, such as general practitioner nursing, nursing homes and independent hospitals etc.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement regarding the management of the special hospitals at Rampton and Broadmoor.

  Mr. Bowis
  The special hospitals are each managed by a hospital management team, headed by a general manager. The general managers report to the Special Hospitals Service Authority, which is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Leeds General Infirmary
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were on the waiting list at the Leeds general infirmary on 1 March 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting lists for in-patient and day case treatment by national health service trust is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library. It is published twice yearly with figures for March and
  203
  September. Figures for March 1994 have not yet been published. Information on waiting times to first out-patient appointment is not yet collected.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many complaints were made by patients in relation to the treatment and care received at the Leeds general infirmary in 1991, 1992 and 1993;

  (2) what was the total number of cancelled operations in the Leeds general infirmary since March 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Tony Clegg, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the proportion of ambulance calls to which a response time of(a) 19 minutes and (b) eight minutes has been achieved in each ambulance service area, for each of the last five years, giving the proportion for previous constituent areas where appropriate.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested may be found in the Library in the booklets of summary information on patient transport services published by the Department of Health statistics division.

  Child Migrants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of placing and maintaining British child migrants during each year between 1964 and 1967.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information required was not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation she has made of the adequacy of current grant aid to the Child Migrants Trust.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Child Migrants Trust applied to the Department for a core grant in October 1993. An official subsequently visited the trust and evaluated their finances. The Department has recently awarded a grant of £30,000 per year for the next three financial years 1994–95 to 1996–97.

  Nursing Homes (Fees)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the relatives of nursing home residents may reclaim fees paid in advance if the resident dies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The ability to reclaim fees will depend on the terms of the contract for the provision of nursing home care. This is a matter for negotiation between the home owner and whoever pays for the resident's care. It is not for the Government to specify the terms for payment of fees.

  National Health Service Management Executive (Regional Outposts)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the dates and locations for the first board meetings of each of the eight regional outposts of the national health service management executive; and if the meetings will be held in public.
  204
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The regional offices of the national health service executive do not have boards.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1990 the expenditure on gross redundancy payments for each health authority and national health service trust in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]Figures for redundancy payments for trusts are available only for 1991–92 and 1992–93. The information is shown in tables that will be placed in the Library. It should be noted that the figures for 1992–93 are only provisional and have not yet been validated. They are, therefore, not wholly reliable.

  The closure of psychiatric hospitals in connection with the "Care in the Community" programme and management restructuring throughout the national health service, as a result of the national health service reforms, are the main reasons for the increase in redundancy payments. This has delivered valuable savings and led to greater efficiency in the NHS, resulting in greater numbers of in-patient admissions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what were the major conclusions of the Palestinian-Israeli talks held in Cairo last week; and what British contribution is planned as a result;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the agreement between the PLO and Israeli Government about the deployment of a Palestinian police force in the occupied territories; what provision was made for the deployment of an observer team; what is its mandate; what is its national make-up; and what British offers of assistance were made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to his written questions on this subject on 12 April,Official Report, columns 14–16.

  Iran (Dissidents)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the recent parliamentary human rights group reprt on alleged involvement by Iranian Government officials in the assassination of Iranian dissidents overseas; and what steps he is taking to raise the matter at the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have written to the chairman of the parliamentary human rights group, Lord Avebury. We and our European partners drafted and co-sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, adopted on 9 March 1994, expressing concern at continuing reports of Iranian involvement in terrorism. The resolution urged the Government of Iran to"refrain from activities such as those mentioned in the report of the Special Representative against members of the Iranian opposition living abroad and to cooperate wholeheartedly with the authorities of other countries in investigating and punishing offences reported by them".

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in respect of the Organisation of African Unity proposal to send a peace-keeping force to Burundi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The first elements of the OAU observer mission have arrived in Burundi. On 6 April east African Heads of State and the Organisation of African Unity Secretary-General met in Dar es Salaam. They reaffirmed the vital role of the OAU in restoring confidence in Burundi and called for the strengthening of its engagement. We very much hope that despite the tragic death of President Ntaryamira the process of national reconciliation will continue.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current position in the peace talks in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The peace talks in Lusaka have been stalled for the last month over the issue of UNITA's participation in Government. However, we understand that the gap between the two parties is narrow. The United Nations Secretary-General has urged both the Government and UNITA to show the flexibility needed finally to reach a comprehensive settlement.

  Iraq
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to urge for a review of the sanctions on Iraq and their effects on the civilian population of Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sanctions are reviewed every 60 days by the Security Council. At the latest—the 18th—sanctions review on 18 March, the Security Council concluded that there were no grounds for lifting sanctions.

  Our quarrel is with the regime, not the long-suffering Iraqi people. Responsibility for the hardship of the civilian population lies with Saddam Hussein.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the EU intends to take to counteract the Greek blockade of Macedonia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Commission announced on 6 April that it would institute infraction proceedings against Greece in the European Court of Justice on 13 April if by that date Greece had not revoked its decision to deny the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia access to the port of Salonika. We support this decision.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have recently been taken to improve the resources open to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
  206
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which had its annual session from January to March 1994, is adequately funded from within the UN regular budget.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek assurances from the Sudan Government that the Nuba mountains area will now be accessible to international non-governmental organisations following the IGADD—Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development—meeting in Nairobi on 17 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The sub-committee established at the recent IGADD talks to implement the declaration of principles allowing free access of relief supplies and humanitarian assistance began work on 6 April. Representatives from the UN-sponsored Operation Life-Line are expected to participate. We shall be closely monitoring the committee's progress in advance of the next high-level IGADD talks in mid-May.

  North Korea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if North Korea has yet agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of all seven nuclear facilities in the country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 15 February, North Korea agreed to the IAEA's requirements for inspection at each of its seven declared nuclear facilities. However, on 21 March, the IAEA director general stated that the inspections, carried out between 3 and 14 March, had not permitted the agency to conclude that nuclear material had not been diverted for military use in North Korea since February 1993. Agency inspectors had not been allowed to carry out previously agreed inspection activities at one of the facilities. On 31 March, the president of the UN Security Council issued a statement calling on North Korea to comply fully with its safeguards agreement.

  Mercenaries
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 28 January, Official Report, column 468, on the possible recruitment of United Kingdom mercenaries by the Azeri Government, when he expects his investigations to be completed; and what further information he has received.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Officials have found no evidence to support the allegations of recruitment of United Kingdom mercenaries by the Azerbaijani Government. Any further information from hon. Members will be carefully considered and any evidence of illegal activity referred to the prosecuting authorities.

SCOTLAND

  Rent Review Service
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for how many private sector tenancies regulated under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 a fair rent has been set by the rent review service at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  Fair rents for regulated tenancies are registered by the rent registration service under the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. Fair rent registrations recorded on the rent register can date back to the 1960s and a high proportion will relate to dwellings which are no longer regulated tenancies, since changes in status are not reported to the rent registration service. As fair rents apply for a minimum of three years, unless there is a significant change of circumstances, the total number of fair rents registered during the last three years provides an approximate guide to the current number of regulated tenancies. The figures are as follows:

  Number

  1991

  15,554

  1992

  12,411

  1993

  12,163

  Education
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to re-organising the arrangements for assessment and certification of(a) vocational and (b) non-vocational education in Scottish schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The policy document "Higher Still: Opportunity for All" sets out plans to draw together Scottish Examination Board—SEB—and Scottish Vocational Education Council—SCOTVEC—courses into a single curriculum and assessment framework. There will be a mixture of internal and external assessment. All passes will be presented on a single certificate.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered instituting a points system to enable comparison between standard grades, highers, advanced highers and national certificate modules.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Our policy document "Higher Still: Opportunity for All" stated that we propose to consult those who use qualifications and awards about a possible points system to make clearer the compatibility and equivalences within the new system.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to merging the Scottish Vocational Education Council and the Scottish Examination Board; and what representations he has received from Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested bodies on this matter.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Our policy statement "Higher Still: Opportunity for All" stated that we will be examining options for the best relationship between SCOTVEC and SEB for the administration of the new awards. During consultation on the Howie committee 208
  report on upper secondary curriculum and awards 73 respondents, including COSLA, commented on this matter.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which body will be responsible for assessing and issuing achievement certificates for the new highers, advanced highers and national certificate modules.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Arrangements for administering the new awards will be developed by the Scottish Office Education Department, SCOTVEC and SEB as part of the development programme for implementing the decisions announced in "Higher Still: Opportunity for All".

  Examinations
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to changing the time of year at which pupils in the upper secondary school sit examinations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to change the time of year at which pupils in the upper secondary school sit examinations.

  Seal Cull
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to institute a seal cull; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to authorise a seal cull.

  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Service
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he now intends to make to the Highlands and Islands veterinary services schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 31 March 1994]We are still considering what changes should be made to this scheme. Officials from my department hope to meet representatives of the British Veterinary Association soon to take matters forward.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the British Veterinary Association has yet responded to any consultation guidelines regarding the Highland and Islands veterinary services schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  The British Veterinary Association was one of the bodies which responded to our consultation exercise in 1991. We have since had further correspondence with the BVA.

  Special Conservation Areas
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the implications for existing economic and recreational activities of an area which is accorded special area of conservation status.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The implications for existing economic and recreational activities in an area designated as a special area of conservation will vary according to the conservation interest for which the site is designated and the nature and extent of the existing activities.
  209
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Scottish Office will be taking to obtain local views on economic and social factors which might moderate the list of possible special areas of conservation prior to the list being issued for public consultation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Government believe that when a list of candidate special areas of conservation has been drawn up, the owners and occupiers of those sites should be the first to be informed. In drawing up their proposals the Government will take account of available information on economic and social factors, including relevant local authority structure and local plans. Moreover, the Scottish Office would be interested in any advice which local authorities and other organisations might care to give about areas which they consider suitable or unsuitable for proposal as special areas of conservation.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress towards construction of the Skye bridge, with particular reference to reported difficulties encountered in respect of concrete poured atop the north pier; and if he will estimate what financial implications this will have for the project as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The particularly bad weather conditions experienced over the winter months have caused the construction of the main bridge to be not as well advanced as other parts of the scheme. The difficulty with the concrete at the top of the north pier has not been an obstacle to progress. The contractor is currently reviewing his programme and, given good weather conditions coupled with an improvement in output, anticipates completion of the bridge in autumn 1995. The financial implications associated with the construction contract lie with the contractor and the developer: there are no implications either for the level or the duration of the tolls, which remain as published in the made toll order.

  Lumpy Skin Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of lumpy skin disease occurred in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There have been no recorded cases of lumpy skin disease in Scotland.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to his Department of the merging of the boundaries of local authorities proposed in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill by the Ordnance Survey; and how much of this expenditure was attributable to the boundaries of the proposed East Renfrewshire authority.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]Final costs to the Department in respect of the use of Ordnance Survey services are not yet known since work on boundaries is continuing in response to commitments given to the Standing Committee considering the Local 210
  Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. The cost in relation to the mereing of the boundary of the proposed East Renfrewshire authority, prior to the introduction of the Bill, was £253.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library all submissions made to him concerning the reorganisation of area tourist boards in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]I have arranged for a copy of the submission which I commissioned from the Scottish tourist board to be placed in the Library. All other submissions were unsolicited and are not therefore covered by the understanding about publication applied to responses to formal consultation exercises.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a local enterprise company has absolute discretion, subject to Government guidelines as to who is on its management board.

  Mr. Stewart
  Government guidelines require that two thirds of a local enterprise company's directors, including the chairman, are drawn from senior members of the private sector and that all directors should either live or work in the local area. Subject to these requirements, and any others laid down in the company's articles of association, the selection of board members is at the discretion of the company's members.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish Enterprise about skill shortages in the Scottish economy; and what he proposes to do about them.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations from Scottish Enterprise about skill shortages in the Scottish economy. It is an objective of Scottish Enterprise to improve the performance of new and existing businesses by increasing their commitment to plan and invest in training and development to meet business needs. Scottish Enterprise is also responsible for funding and co-ordinating the provision of training for young people and unemployed adults through local enterprise companies to meet the needs of the local labour markets.

  Students
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of full-time students in higher education institutions who are(a) home based, (b) living away from their parents' home and studying in London or (c) living away from their parents' home and studying elsewhere.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]For 1992–93, the number of undergraduate students receiving awards from the then awards division of the Scottish Office Education Department, now Student Awards Agency for Scotland, was(a) 30,553, (b) 809 and (c) 54,897.

  Home Helps
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what levels of charges are imposed by local authorities on persons not in receipt of income-related benefits for home helps.

  Mr. Stewart
  Local authorities have discretionary powers under section 87(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, as amended, to charge such an amount as they consider reasonable for adult non-residential care services, including domiciliary—home help—services, taking

  Number and percentage of three and four year olds attending nursery schools

  Education authority nursery schools and departments:

  Private nursery schools1

  Nursery departments of independent schools

  Number attending at September 1993

  Percentage of population2

  Number attending at March 1993

  Percentage of population2

  Strathclyde

  19,304

  32·3

  1,816

  2·6

  Scotland

  48,132

  36·9

  3,677

  2·5

  1Registered with local authority social work departments.

  2Provisional: based on the mid-1992 population estimates from the General Register Office (Scotland).

  Educational Support Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which education authorities offer educational support services for children suffering from autism; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Education authorities have a duty to provide for the special educational needs of children belonging to their area and they fulfil this responsibility through appropriate learning support.

  Centrally held records do not identify specifically the number of children suffering from autism or autistic tendencies, but it is likely that all education authorities in Scotland will have autistic children belonging to their area for whom they make educational provision.

  Housing Stock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum is required to bring the council housing stock in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole up to satisfactory habitable standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally. It is up to individual local authorities to undertake local house condition surveys of their stock to assess the state of their council housing and to decide how best to deploy the substantial resources available to them to improve the standard of their housing. I have asked all local authorities to give priority to tackling below tolerable standard housing and dampness and condensation in preparing their housing plans and capital programmes.

  Information on the general state of repair of public sector housing stock is quoted in the report of the 1991 Scottish house condition survey which is available in the Library.
  212
  account of individual financial circumstances. This applies irrespective of whether the client is in receipt of income-related benefits or not.

  Nursery Education
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many three-year olds and four-year olds are receiving nursery education in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole; and what percentage these represent of the total number of children of this age group in both Strathclyde and Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Mineral Workings
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet set a date for publication of the national planning policy guideline on land for mineral working; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today published the national planning policy guideline—NPPG—on land for mineral working. Copies are available in the Library.

  This is the first comprehensive planning policy statement on the working of minerals in Scotland. It seeks to promote economic activity without compromising Scotland's important environmental assets. In so doing, it introduces a general presumption in favour of properly assessed and controlled mineral extraction, cautions against such activity in particularly sensitive locations, and requires high standards of environmental care. It also commends a greater reliance on renewable and recycled materials, in line with our undertakings in the recently published "UK Sustainable Development Strategy", Cm. 2426.

  In addition, the NPPG provides explicit guidance on coastal superquarries. I have concluded that such developments have a potentially important contribution to make to the economy at both national and local level, but that their scale and potential impact require them to be controlled carefully. Based on previous research and a preference for a dispersed geographical pattern, I have therefore stipulated preferred search areas on the north coast of Highland region, in the Shetland isles and in the Western isles. In the first instance, I have also chosen to limit numbers, allowing for no more than four such developments, including the existing superquarry at Glensanda, over the 15-year period to 2009. Proposals will be notified to me accordingly.

  This will be subject to review in the normal manner. In the meantime, I believe it represents a realistic strategy that will allow a sensible balance to be struck between social and economic benefits on the one hand and environmental care on the other.

WALES

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date he expects all applications for sheep annual premium for this year in Wales to have been paid out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Payments of the final instalment to 1993 claimants should begin within the next month or so, and be completed by June, except in those cases which are held up by queries or quota problems.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received within the last six months on the subject of the payment of sheep annual premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Between 1 October 1993 and 31 March 1994 I received about 100 representations. At 31 March some 90 per cent. of all valid claims had been paid.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual sums of money committed since the inception of the European regional development fund to each recipient local authority and the annual amounts paid to each from the fund.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 625, how many members of the public have written to him to (a) support and (b) oppose the inclusion of Pentyrch in the proposed new unitary authority of Cardiff; and if he will list their wards of residence.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since the publication of the White Paper "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future" I have not received any representations from members of the public about the inclusion of Pentyrch in the proposed Cardiff unitary authority.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 625 if he will list all the specific representations he has received in favour of the inclusion of Llanelly in the proposed new unitary authority of Powys, with the date on which each one was made.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since publication of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, I have received one representation from the chairman of Powys county council, in February 1994, supporting the inclusion of Llanelly in the proposed Powys unitary authority.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those specific representations that have been made to him opposing the inclusion of Wick, St. Brides Major and Ewenny in the proposed new unitary authority of Vale of Glamorgan, giving the date on which each representation was made.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since publication of the White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future",214
  I have received representations opposing the inclusion of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny in the proposed Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority from:

  Win Griffiths MP

  Ogwr borough council

  St. Bride's Major town council

  Ewenny community council

  Wick community council

  and 176 members of the public

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specific representations he has had opposing the inclusion of Pentyrch in the proposed new unitary authority of Cardiff; and when each representation was made.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since publication of the White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future", I received one representation from Taff Ely borough council dated 6 April 1993 in opposition to the inclusion of Pentyrch in the proposed Cardiff unitary authority.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, columns 322-23, if he will list the date of each specific representation that he has received favouring the inclusion of Wick, St. Brides Major and Ewenny in the proposed new unitary authority of Vale of Glamorgan.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since publication of the White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future", I have received representations from 13 organisations and individuals in support of the inclusion of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny in the proposed Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority dated as follows:Dates of representations expressing support for the inclusion of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny in the proposed Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority:

  7 March 1993

  9 March 1993

  11 March 1993

  21 March 1993

  23 March 1993

  29 March 1993

  31 March 1993

  20 May 1993

  10 June 1993

  7 July 1993

  12 July 1993

  18 July 1993

  26 January 1994

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 625, if he will list all the specific representations that he has received in favour of the inclusion of Pentyrch in the proposed new unitary authority of Cardiff; and when each one was made.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since the publication of the White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future", I have received one letter, dated 26 January 1994, from the Leaders of Cardiff city council and Vale of Glamorgan borough council stating that they support"the proposals as outlined in the Bill".

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specific representations he has received opposing the inclusion of Llanelly in the proposed new unitary authority of Powys; and when each representation was made.
  215
  Mr. Redwood
  Since publication of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, I have received the following specific representations opposing the inclusion of Llanelly in the proposed Powys unitary authority:

  Cllr. Bernard Assinder, leader of Blaenau Gwent borough council - December 1993

  Cllr. Bernard Assinder, leader of Blaenau Gwent borough council - January 1994

  Cllr. Bernard Assinder, leader of Blaenau Gwent borough council - March 1994

  Cllr. Bernard Assinder, leader of Blaenau Gwent borough council - March 1994

  Cllr. Bernard Assinder, leader of Blaenau Gwent borough council - April 1994

  Llanelly community council - December 1993

  Monmouth Conservative Association - March 1994

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 625, if he will cite the precise reference and form of words in the representation he has received from Cardiff city council which indicates the authority favouring the inclusion of Pentyrch in the proposed new unitary authority of Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  In a joint letter to me dated 26 January 1994, the Leaders of Cardiff city council and Vale of Glamorgan borough council said"We would, therefore, wish to re-affirm our support for the proposals as outlined in the Bill. The proposed new unitary authorities present by far the best solution for the people of our areas, best for the people of the wider region and best for the local government in Wales."

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  "A History of Salford Mining"
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Lancashire artists, "A History of Salford Mining", to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 11 July to Friday 15 July.

  Ministerial Memoirs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the provision of compensation for Ministers who resign from office or are dismissed commenced; what factors occasioned it; how often it has been refused by any ex-Minister since 1979; and what representations he has received arguing that ex-Ministers should not publish memoirs of their time in office for a given period after leaving office.

  Mr. Newton
  Severance payments were introduced for Ministers in the House of Lords by section 13 of Parliamentary Pensions Act 1984, and extended to those in the House of Commons by the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991. These payments were introduced following recommendations by the Top Salaries Review Body; Reports No. 20, Cmnd 8881 of May 1983, and No. 26, Cm 362 of May 1988 respectively. They compensate for the abrupt loss of earnings which Ministers face immediately on leaving office. I am not 216
  aware of a severance payment ever having been refused. I have received no representations proposing a moratorium on the memoirs of ex-Ministers.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many statutory instruments were(a) made by Ministers and (b) approved by Parliament in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1992, there were a total of 3,359 statutory instruments made by Ministers; of these, 127 were laid before the House and approved. In 1993, the figures were 3,279 and 172 respectively.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much his Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, column 774.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office has no computer-aided facilities management systems.

  As to theft, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 16 February, which records that no equipment has been stolen from the Privy Council Office in the last three years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him in February.

  Mr. Newton
  I received 23 letters from hon. Members in February and wrote to 16.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the number of households comprising individuals of pensionable age(a) living alone and (b) living with another individual or individuals also of pensionable age.

  Mr Hague
  In 1990–91—the latest year for which information is available—an estimated 3·34 million persons over pension age lived in households alone and 2·12 million households comprised persons over pension age living with one or more others over pension age.

  These estimates derive from the 1990–91 family expenditure survey.

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

  Mr. Hague
  The Department has employed IT consultants and contractors over the past five years to assist the permanent civil service IT specialists to provide IT services to the DSS group, Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, the Employment Service and Department of Health. All aspects of IT are covered including business analysis, development, implementation and service delivery.

  Details of these services, including expenditure for IT consultants and contractors, are in the table.

  Year

  Number of consultants

  Number of contractors

  Cost

  £

  1988–89

  1—

  1—

  47,730,354

  1989–90

  493

  131

  40,907,144

  1990–91

  553

  293

  78,094,010

  1991–92

  541

  245

  65,922,056

  1992–93

  334

  552

  92,179,112

  1Not available.

  Carers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the proportion of the total social security budget which will be spent on the invalid care allowance and the carer premium in 1993–94.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalid care allowance represents 0·53 per cent. of the total social security budget, excluding administration costs, for 1993–94.

  Carer premium is not a benefit in its own right, but is a factor in the calculation of the income-related benefits—income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Reliable data on expenditure on carer premium alone are not available for 1993–94.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of national average earnings the current level of invalid care allowance represents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  In April 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, invalid care allowance represented 10·6 per cent. of national average earnings.

  It provides a measure of income maintenance and is not intended to be a wage for carers.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current annual cost of benefits for carers.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to estimate the full cost of benefits which a carer may receive. Planned expenditure on invalid care allowance, which is specifically intended for carers, is £510 million for 1994–95.

  Source: Departmental Report 1994.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the launch of a War Pensions Agency.
  218
  Mr. Hague
  The War Pensions Agency has been formally launched today. The agency has developed a charter standard statement and a framework document which are both published today. I have arranged for these papers to be placed in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the effect of the removal of child benefit and additional income support from a full-time student on his or her 19th birthday.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) on 15 March, at columns 628–29.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments have been made in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield since October 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of cold weather payments is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 12 April 1994:
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many cold weather payments have been made in Doncaster, Barnsley, Rotherham and Sheffield since October 1993.
  The information you require is detailed in the table below.

  Benefits Agency district

  Number of cold weather payments made in the period 1 October 1993 to 30 March 1994

  Barnsley

  11,617

  Doncaster

  14,602

  Rother and Dearne Valley

  19,978

  Sheffield East

  20,270

  Sheffield West

  18,338

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalidity benefit awards for people in the Doncaster district of the Benefits Agency have been(a) reviewed, (b) disallowed and (c) reinstated on appeal in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 12 April 1994:
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) awards in Doncaster District.

  219
  The information is not available in the exact format requested. However, I have provided such information as is available in appendix 1.
  The information provided, with regard to IVB awards disallowed, represents only those disallowed on review and does not include those disallowed at the start of the claim. To obtain those figures would incur disproportionate cost.
  The statistics provided are taken from clerical records maintained in the Doncaster District offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix 1

  Month

  IVB awards reviewed

  IVB awards disallowed

  IVB awards reinstated on appeal

  March 1993

  82

  78

  Nil

  April 1993

  88

  82

  Nil

  May 1993

  81

  79

  1

  June 1993

  115

  106

  2

  July 1993

  90

  78

  1

  August 1993

  84

  78

  3

  September 1993

  79

  75

  5

  October 1993

  78

  75

  4

  November 1993

  68

  67

  10

  December 1993

  47

  46

  5

  January 1994

  76

  73

  22

  February 1994

  90

  84

  15

  March 1994

  140

  130

  24

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications there have been for invalidity benefit in the last 12 months in the Doncaster district of the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 12 April 1994:
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about applications for Invalidity Benefit in Doncaster.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because, although Benefits Agency Districts record overall claims to incapacity benefits, claims to Sickness Benefit (SB) and Invalidity Benefit (IVB) are not recorded separately. Separate figures for SB and IVB could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  Statistics are maintained however, to provide information regarding the total numbers of applications for SB/IVB received in each Benefits Agency District.
  Between 1 March 1993 and 28 February 1994 there were 8,508 such applications received in the Doncaster District.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of people in the Doncaster district have been in receipt of invalidity benefit in each month over the last two years.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 12 April 1994:
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about Invalidity Benefit recipients in Doncaster.
  220
  I have provided the information you requested at appendix 1. The figures will include a small number of people who have claimed but are not receiving Invalidity Benefit because they are in receipt of a higher overlapping benefit.
  The statistics provided were obtained from a clerical count of cases within the Benefits Agency offices of the Doncaster District.

  Doncaster district invalidity benefit recipients

  Number

  March 1992

  13,973

  April 1992

  11,662

  May 1992

  11,933

  June 1992

  12,054

  July 1992

  11,941

  August 1992

  12,083

  September 1992

  13,307

  October 1992

  12,576

  November 1992

  12,935

  December 1992

  12,682

  January 1993

  12,694

  February 1993

  12,788

  March 1993

  13,091

  April 1993

  12,953

  May 1993

  13,026

  June 1993

  13,666

  July 1993

  13,729

  August 1993

  13,857

  September 1993

  14,177

  October 1993

  14,370

  November 1993

  13,966

  December 1993

  14,666

  January 1994

  14,728

  February 1994

  14,690

  War Pensioners (Deafness)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received regarding audiological hearing tests for war pensioners in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what changes have been made in the method of dealing with war pensioners' deafness claims in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 12 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about War Pensions claims for deafness.
  Claims for a War Pension in respect of deafness caused or made worse by service invariably require an audiometric test to be carried out to establish the extent of any hearing loss.
  To improve the service provided to those making such claims, the procedure of audiometric testing was changed in June 1993.
  At that time a contract was signed by General Healthcare Group PLC (trading as BMI Healthcare (Audiology Services)) to provide audiometric tests. BMI began arranging some tests from July 1993 and assumed responsibility for all such tests from August 1993.
  Throughout this change all those involved previously in providing tests were kept informed. There was also an exchange of correspondence which dealt with representations made by the two main recognised professional bodies in this field—British Association of Audiological Technicians Ltd and the British Association of Audiological Scientists.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been submitted in the Seaham and Peterlee areas for assessment of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many have been successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. John Cummings, dated 12 April 1994:
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the number of claims submitted in the Seaham and Peterlee areas for assessment of chronic bronchitis and emphysema and how many have been successful.
  Firstly, I would like to explain that there are two stages to the take on of claims for prescribed disease D12 (known as chronic bronchitis and emphysema), for which industrial injuries disablement benefit has been available since 13 September 1993 for people who have worked for at least 20 years underground in a coal mine.
  Stage 1 was restricted to claims from people who were aged 70 or over on 13 September 1993 or had an award of higher rate Disability Living Allowance care component or higher rate Attendance Allowance. Stage 1 ended on 28 February 1994; stage 2 commenced from 1 March and is open to anybody to claim. All claims are considered for payment from 13 September 1993.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are not available for specific areas but for Benefits Agency Districts. I have therefore supplied information for the Benefits Agency's North Durham District which covers the Seaham and Peterlee areas as well as Durham, Chester-le-Street and Stanley.
  As at 27 March 1994 the number of claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema received by the North Durham District Office was 2,646. This is in respect of both stage 1 and 2 of the take-on of claims. Not all of the claims have been processed yet but of those that have, 186 have been successful and have resulted in an award of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of claims notified to the compensation recovery unit for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993; in how many cases in each year no recovery was made because the claim had a value of less than £2,500; and what was the total amount recovered in each year.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 12 April 1994:
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the number of claims notified to the Compensation Recovery Unit, the number of cases settled below the Small Payment Limit of £2,500, and the total amount recovered in each of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.
  The information requested is produced below for each financial year.
  222
  The number of claims notified to the Compensation Recovery Unit and the total amounts recovered are as follows:

  Period

  Claims notified

  Amount recovered £million

  1 April 1991—31 March 1992

  121,657

  25·3

  1 April 1992—31 March 1993

  158,996

  51·3

  1 April 1993—31 March 1994

  188,708

  81·9

  Compensators are not obliged to notify the Compensation Recovery Unit if the compensation award is settled at or below the Small Payment Limit. Of those notified 91,419 cases were settled at or below the Small Payment Limit between 1 January 1989 and 31 March 1993. For the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 the number of cases notified were 48,655.
  1 hope this reply is helpful.

  Benefits Office, Highgate
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans there are for the Benefits Agency to relocate the Highgate benefits office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The relocation of the Benefits Agency office in Highgate is an operational matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 12 April 1994:
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about plans to relocate the Benefits Agency office in Highgate.
  You will already be aware of the poor condition and design of the premises that house the Highgate office which have necessitated the need to relocate the office. We have identified suitable alternative accommodation at IA Elthorne Road London N19. The main work to refurbish these premises began on 31 January 1994 and the projected completion, including the installation of computer cabling, is expected by 7 October 1994. The intention will be to open to the public around 14 November but this may be subject to revision. Until that date customers will continue to be served from the existing premises in Archway Tower.
  The move from a very poor and inadequate building to modern office accommodation will provide improved quality services for customers and staff alike. It will mean increased privacy for customers, and improved access and service for people with disabilities and customers with children.
  The Manager, Steve Watson, Euston District, PO Box 1933, London NW1 2ED will be happy to provide you with any further information or progress reports should you require them.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Indonesia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions there are on trade with Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no major restrictions on trade with Indonesia. Some products require licences for export to Indonesia, and there are quota restrictions on imports of textiles and clothing into the EU. However, as a result of the successful completion of the GATT Uruguay round textile and clothing quotas will be phased out over a 10-year period under the ending of the multi-fibre arrangement. Indonesia's high tariffs will also be reduced.

  Embassies (Advice to Business Men)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiatives he has taken to improve the standard of advice given to British business men via Her Majesty's embassies overseas.

  Mr. Needham
  I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about commercial work undertaken by FCO posts abroad. They are an integral part of our overseas trade services network. Recent initiatives, including the establishment of business links, the recruitment of export promoters and the preparation of market plans for our top 80 markets share the common objective of enhancing the standards of every part of the overseas trade services.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received since last December's GATT settlement from the aerospace industry.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Trade and Industry has been in regular contact with the United Kingdom aerospace industry, both with individual companies and through the Society of British Aerospace Companies, about the continuing negotiations on a new GATT agreement on trade in civil aircraft.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have utilised the small firms loan guarantee scheme in the year following the changes made to the scheme in the 1993 March Budget; and what is the total sum guaranteed under that scheme during that period.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A total of 3,886 loans at a value of £155·01 million have been guaranteed under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in the year to 31 March 1994. This compares to 2,342 loans at a value of £52·01 million in the previous year.

  Exports (Stimulation)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to stimulate local events to promote United Kingdom exports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  To assist British companies to compete in world markets my right hon. Friend has created business links giving local access to a wide range of business advice and support services. In addition, numerous export-related events are sponsored by my Department across the country. The current language campaign, with more than 70 local events and initiatives from this week onwards throughout the United Kingdom and a special BBC television programme, is one example.

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effect on the service to consumers of the reduction in the funding of the National Consumer Council.
  224
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am confident the National Consumer Council will continue to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers, taking into account the revised level of grant in aid.

  Local Markets
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the effect of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on local markets.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has received some 120 representations from individuals, local authorities, trade associations and businesses on the Government's proposals to deregulate market franchise rights, of which 16 express support. Many of those who oppose the proposal do so under the misapprehension that it will abolish the right of local authorities to continue to hold markets and collect rents. Clauses 21 to 23 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill would remove rights of local authorities with market franchises to object to proposals to set up competing markets within six and two thirds of a mile of their own. Other opponents believe that removing market franchise rights will remove controls over other markets which may cause a local nuisance. Market franchise rights can only be used against rival markets held on the same day as the franchise market or where, if not held on the same day, it can be demonstrated that the owner of the franchise has suffered actual loss. A range of powers is available to local authorities to control any undesirable consequences arising from other markets.

  Exports and Inward Investment
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met business representatives to discuss exports and inward investment.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend frequently has meetings with members of the United Kingdom business community which involve discussions concerning exports and inward investment.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to support the shipbuilding industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department's sponsorship divisions maintain close contact with our shipbuilding industry. We provide the industry with assistance from the shipbuilding intervention fund and the home credit guarantee scheme. We provide the maximum level of support permitted by the seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding.

  Institute of Directors
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Institute of Directors to discuss matters affecting business including inward investment.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have regular contact with the Institute of Directors to discuss matters affecting business.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the new map for objective 5b areas in England.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I consider it to be generally very satisfactory. The Government negotiated a trebling of England's objective 5(b) coverage, to 1·7 million people.

  I am particularly pleased that the Government secured designation of the whole of Cornwall. Newly eligible areas include large parts of Devon, parts of Somerset, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Lancashire, and large parts of Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, Northumberland and Cumbria. New areas in Shropshire and Hereford and Worcester now complement those retained in rural Wales and a new area in Clwyd.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the level of provisions required by insurance companies to meet the compensation arising from the mis-selling of personal pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department has written to life offices asking for an indication of their likely exposure to compensation in respect of mis-selling of personal pensions, and providing guidance on how the Department expects them to reserve for any such exposure in future Companies Act accounts and DTI returns. Individual responses must remain confidential as between the life offices and the Department, but where a life office considers that it is likely to have a liability, or a contingent liability, in respect of mis-selling of pension business, the Department expects this to be recognised in the published accounts. The Securities and Investments Board is seeking to determine the extent of mis-selling and the position will not be clear until that review is completed later in the year. It would be wrong to conclude, therefore, at this stage that evidence of procedural defects necessarily implies that the advice given by financial advisers was bad.

  Commercial Debt
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the issue of late payment of commercial debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has continued to receive representations from a variety of organisations and individuals proposing responses to the problem of late payment.

  On 30 November 1993, the Department of Trade and Industry published a consultation paper, "Late Payment of Commercial Debt", to seek the views of the business community on possible options to address the problem of late payment, including legislation for a statutory right to interest and a British Standard for prompt payment.

  Responses to the paper were required by 31 March 1994. More than 340 responses have been received and are now under consideration.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from industry about the availability of finance for the growth and development of small firms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We regularly meet representatives from industry and we receive many suggestions as to how small firms can be helped to obtain the finance that they need.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his report to Parliament on the status of small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department plans to publish the report small firms in Britain 1994 in June. A copy will be sent to individual hon. Members and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Utility Regulators
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the power of the utility regulators to limit charges and boardroom salary increases.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The utility regulators have sufficient powers to protect consumers' interests over a range of issues including prices. The remuneration of company directors is a matter for the company concerned and its shareholders.

  Postal Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received on the subject of the privatisation of postal services in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Around 280 letters have been received on the subject in my Department since 1 April 1993 from hon. Members, interested parties and members of the public. A wide range of views have been expressed.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effects of full or partial privatisation of Companies House on employees' pension and redundancy rights.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Any assessment would be premature in advance of a decision in principle on the future of Companies House. No such decision has yet been taken.

  Nuclear Energy Review
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the timetable and terms of reference of the nuclear energy review.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 16 December 1993,Official Report, columns 759–60.

  VAT Registration, North West
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses registered and deregistered for value added tax in(a) Pendle and (b) the north-west in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The figures for 1992 are as follows:

  Registrations

  De-registrations

  North West (Standard Region)

  19,262

  22,791

  Pendle

  254

  284

  Figures are not available for 1993.

  Shareholders and Creditors (Class Actions)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce proposals for legislation under which shareholders and creditors would be able to bring class actions against the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to seek to change the present state of the law.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information plc auditors are required to file with the recognised supervisory bodies in relation to their own affairs.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All registered auditors must provide their supervisory body each year with information relating to the following matters so that the bodies may discharge their statutory duties as set out in part II of schedule 11 to the Companies Act 1989:

  —the holding of an appropriate qualification;

  —being a fit and proper person(s);

  —professional integrity and independence;

  —the technical standards applied to company audit work;

  —the maintenance of competence;

  —the monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the supervisory body's rules;

  —eligibility for membership of the supervisory body;

  —the ability to meet claims arising out of company audit work;

  —the maintenance of the public register for company auditors by the supervisory body.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) individual auditors and (b) auditing firms are registered with each of the authorised bodies under the provisions of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The latest available figures for those registered with the recognised supervisory bodies under the Companies Act 1989 are as follows:

  Supervisory body

  Individuals

  Firms

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  19,473

  9,218

  Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  1,273

  742

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  829

  463

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  3,959

  507

  Association of Authorised Public Accountants

  460

  425

  Audit Failures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many instances of audit failures he has referred to any accountancy body; and what was the outcome of each referral.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual reports of the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors for the years ended 30 September 1992 and 1993 respectively, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Yorkshire Rider Bus Company
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the proposed takeover of the Yorkshire Rider Bus Company by Badgerline.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received representations from the hon. Member. In addition, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to a question raised by the former hon. Member for Bradford, South, Bob Cryer, on 24 March,Official Report, column 424. While the Director General of Fair Trading is still considering the proposed acquisition, all representations about it should be made direct to him.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will estimate the number of newsagents who are expected to go out of business following the current deregulation proposals;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of school children who will lose their delivery jobs following the current deregulation proposals.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Statutory consultation on the provisions of an order under the Fair Trading Act 1973, in relation to the wholesale supply of national newspapers to retailers in England and Wales, ended on 31 March.

  The proposed order, which follows a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, would prohibit wholesalers from refusing to supply retailers on the grounds that an area is already adequately served; placing restrictions on the point of sale; preventing retailers from selling newspapers on to other retailers. I am prepared to consider as an alternative to an order any industry-led solutions that could lead to a substantial increase in competition comparable to that which would be achieved by an order. Until I have had a chance to consider fully the representations I have received I cannot say what precise form the changes I intend to introduce will take. Therefore, I would not wish to speculate about the potential impact of reform.

  Exports (Declaration of Interest)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance is given to(a) members of the Export Credit Advisory Council and (b) the British Overseas Projects Board on declarations of interest; what such declarations have been made; and in what form such declarations are recorded.
  229
  Mr. Needham
  When members of the Export Credits Advisory Council are appointed, they are required to provide a list of their business interests and directorships to the Export Credits Guarantee Department on a confidential basis. These lists are updated from time to time as necessary and maintained by ECGD. Members are also required to declare where they have an interest when advising ECGD on particular issues.

  As a condition of service, Overseas Projects Board members are asked to declare their financial interests, including their directorships, to the Department of Trade and Industry and to keep the Department informed of any changes. This information is retained on file by the DTI's Overseas Projects Board secretariat and held in strict confidence.

  Companies Acts (Investigations)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many investigators and inspectors appointed under the Companies Acts have declared an interest in the matters of companies under investigation in the years since 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department would not appoint a particular inspector or investigator if there was a known conflict of interest. If a possible conflict arose during the course of an investigation, officials would discuss with the appointee the appropriate course of action. Instances of this occurring are very infrequent.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what interests relevant to terms covered in the report on the affairs of Astra plc were declared by the inspectors investigating the affairs of the company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors disclosed no interests which conflicted with their appointment to investigate and report on the affairs of Astra Holdings plc.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he or his officials have had with Lord Justice Scott regarding the ways in which the papers and documents submitted to his inquiry could be retained as a collection and made available to public scrutiny.

  Mr. Needham
  There was correspondence in February 1993 alerting the inquiry to the provisions of the Public Records Act.

  Ice Cream
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the effect on fair trade of the freezer monopoly in the ice cream industry;

  (2) what advice is given to small and medium-sized ice cream makers seeking to sell their products to high street retailers and corner shops; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the Wall's freezer monopoly in the ice cream industry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in the United Kingdom of ice cream for immediate consumption was published on 29 March. The MMC has concluded that, although scale 230
  and complex monopoly situations exist in the industry, the practice of freezer exclusivity does not operate against the public interest. The Government have announced that, since the MMC have made no adverse findings, there is no action which can be taken on the report. Ice cream makers and retailers operate in a competitive environment and can choose how best to meet the needs of their customers.

  European Funding
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that the Thanet travel-to-work area obtains the maximum possible European regional development funding and objective 2 funding for investment in infrastructure for central area initiative sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Council regulations allow the member states three months from the date of the decision on eligibility, 20 January, to draw up and present to the Commission plans describing the uses to which it is intended to put the fund's grants. For this purpose the British objective 2 areas will comprise 13 plan areas. The plans are being prepared by Government Departments, with appropriate local consultation.

  The Government have divided the indicative allocation, for the purposes of their plans, as follows:

  Plan area

  Million ecu (1994 prices)

  North East England

  308

  West Cumbria

  25

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  313

  East Midlands

  79

  West Midlands

  371

  Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire

  329

  Greater London

  74

  Thanet

  14

  Plymouth

  29

  South Wales

  188

  Eastern Scotland

  121

  Strathclyde

  286

  Gibraltar

  5

  2,142

  The regulations allow a further six months to negotiate, on the basis of the plans presented, a Community support framework for each plan area. The frameworks will then govern the allocation and use of the fund's grants.

  Only after the Community support frameworks have been negotiated and adopted can detailed decisions be taken on projects to receive grant.

  Liquid Steel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will make a statement concerning the level of production of liquid steel in the European Union.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Crude steel production in the EC increased from 132·2 million tonnes in 1992 to 132·5 million tonnes in 1993.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has of the number of people who have paid for electricity in advance to avoid paying VAT on fuel bills.
  231
  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that about 5 per cent. of electricity customers have made pre-payments.

  Business Conditions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received from(a) the Confederation of British Industry and (b) other business representatives regarding changes in business conditions in each quarter since April 1992.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade regularly receives reports from the Confederation of British Industry and other business representatives regarding business conditions.

  Export Share
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received from companies on changes in the United Kingdom's share of(a) the European export market and (b) the Pacific rim countries.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department receives many reports from companies concerning their export successes. Examples of companies doing well in the export market are included in the "Overseas Trade Magazine", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received from companies in(a) the west midlands and (b) Coventry regarding their exports to (i) Europe and (ii) the Pacific rim.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department has regular contact with firms in the west midlands and recognises their export successes in Europe and the Pacific rim.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to make companies aware of the implications of the Maastricht treaty; and what representations he has received from companies regarding the implications for business of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Needham
  We have had a number of requests for information on Maastricht from industry. Up to now, we have responded on an individual basis. In early May, we shall issue a new DTI booklet entitled "The Single Market —Making it Work for You", which will include material on aspects of the Maastricht treaty.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from(a) individual companies in (i) the west midlands and (ii) Coventry, (b) the Confederation of British Industry and (c) local chambers of commerce, regarding the implications of GATT.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department has responded to a large number of inquiries from companies, trade associations and chambers of commerce about the results of the GATT Uruguay round.
  232
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the implications for the aerospace industry of the proposed GATT agreements; and when he expects the agreement relating to that sector to be reached.

  Mr. Needham
  Negotiations on a GATT agreement on trade in civil aircraft are continuing. The Government's objective for these negotiations is to conclude an agreement which covers the whole aerospace sector, and which includes strict and balanced disciplines on direct and indirect government supports. On 14 December 1993, members of the GATT civil aircraft committee agreed that these negotiations would continue for a further year, ending in December 1994.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the projected end date for the BCCI receivership; and what is the estimated total fee for the services of Touche Ross.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]My Department is not aware of any estimate of the likely duration of the liquidation of BCCI. The fees of Touche Ross as liquidators are a matter for the court and the creditors.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total income in the BCCI receivership is estimated will be absorbed by the fee to the receivers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]My Department does not have this information. It is a matter for the liquidators.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total cost of the BCCI receivership to 31 March.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]The total payments from the English liquidation of BCCI to 15 January, the anniversary of the winding up order, are approximately £215 million.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what employment costs of former BCCI employees may become the liability of the receivers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]This is a matter for the liquidators.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to consult with the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association about changes in fire safety legislation prior to publication of proposed changes.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]The Government will consult all interested parties before making any legislative changes. As part of their widespread consultations, the team undertaking the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement, announced by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade on 17 January,Official Report, column 381, met representatives of the association on 28 March to hear their views on this important issue.
  233
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association about fire safety legislation in the past six months.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]My Department solicited views from the association last year as part of the consultations on the review of the regulations on children's nightwear and foam-filled furniture. The consultation period expired at the end of October 1993, but the association did not respond.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the construction task force report on the future of fire safety.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]The working papers of all seven business deregulation task forces—including those of the construction task force on fire safety—were placed in the Library of the House on Wednesday 30 March.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Cryogenics
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution Her Majesty's Government make to the research and development of cryogenics by British industry and academic research institutions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government, through the Research Councils, support a range of research and development involving cryogenics. This includes support totalling £1 million per annum for research by university groups on low temperature physics and chemistry, and a £5 million programme supporting work on superconducting materials. The research councils also fund the development of superconducting magnets and cooling mechanisms for 234
  use in a range of scientific equipment, including synchrotron radiation, neutron beam and nuclear magnetic resonance equipment, and detectors for particle physics, astronomy and space research.

DEFENCE

  RAF Carlisle
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's response to the joint Whitley response to the equipment supply depot study consultation document on the future of No. 14 MU RAF Carlisle.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is currently considering the proposals contained in the RAF Carlisle joint Whitley response to the equipment supply depot rationalisation study, which was received on 28 March 1994. I shall be taking full account of all representations before coming to final decisions.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects, under the Crichel Down rules, to restore commoners' rights to those who previously held them at Greenham common.

  Mr. Hanley
  Crichel Down rules regulate the disposal of land where there are former owners with rights to re-purchase. The issue of commoners' rights attaching to land is a separate matter. It is my Department's view, based on legal advice, that the commoners' rights on Greenham common were extinguished when compensation moneys were handed over to the Committee of Commoners. My Department has no plans to restore commoners' rights there.

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.

NHS Management: Codes of Conduct
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the results of their consultation on codes of conduct and codes of accountability for chairmen of NHS trust boards and senior NHS managers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, very shortly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I saw some information the other day in a Written Answer, but nowhere have I found any intention to introduce the question of surcharge against these people. Is the Minister aware that in a few weeks' time over 10,000 candidates will fight the local government elections, and that some of those who win will take over very important offices in local government where they will control large sums of money? Can the Minister tell me why those people will be held liable to be surcharged if they cross the dividing line between legality and illegality, and why the people who are appointed and do not face the electorate receive preferential treatment and are treated like untouchables?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is not a question of preferential treatment. People who serve as non-executive directors in the National Health Service are governed by statutes very different to those that govern serving councillors in local government. Councillors are locally elected and are not generally answerable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, whereas board members of NHS trusts and authorities are appointed by the Secretary of State for Health, who answers to Parliament and to the Public Accounts Committee. In local government there is no accounting officer answerable to the Public Accounts Committee, whereas the permanent secretary and the chief executive of the management executive are both accounting officers and are responsible to the PAC. Local authorities have wide powers to raise finance through local taxation and charges, whereas the NHS raises only a very, very small percentage in charges and has no powers to tax. There are many other differences that I could outline, and I have cited only three.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's very detailed answer. However, the sad facts are that on the evidence so far the sanctions that are available have been altered very little. They did not prevent what happened in Wessex and the West Midlands and will not prevent a recurrence. It is not
1532
good enough for the Minister to say that one section of people will be treated differently to another and will be dealt with only by the Secretary of State instead of through the courts of law.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, surcharging in this instance is not relevant. The National Health Service does take action where there are faults to be remedied. That is why the Secretary of State has introduced the Codes of Conduct and Accountability for the National Health Service—codes which have been warmly welcomed by the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister accept my assurance that I understand why there should be codes of accountability? But does she agree that it is a terrible slur on modern society that the Government should have to issue codes of conduct for people taking on responsible positions? I thought that in this country we knew what it meant to take on responsibility.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Secretary of State studied very carefully the Cadbury Report which was introduced for private commercial concerns and took from that the principles that are now established in these codes of conduct. It is right that where issues arise that need remedying the Secretary of State should take action—as indeed she has.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the health service is recognised throughout our country as a tremendously great service? But does she further agree on the matters that are causing consternation: namely, that many doctors are leaving the service; thousands of nurses and health visitors have left the service; and the numbers of managers and similar staff have been increased? That situation is giving general concern throughout the country. Will the Minister accept that there is a problem, and say that the Government think it well worth while to investigate such a problem?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, fewer and fewer people are leaving the National Health Service. That is partly due to the recession and is partly for other reasons. Nurses are staying longer and longer in their posts. They are not leaving now. If one looks at the increase in managers, there are 26 doctors, nurses and clinicians in the field to every manager. I think that one has to get this into perspective. Management accounts for only 3 per cent. of the pay bill and 2 per cent. of the workforce.
Lord Howell: My Lords, if a surcharge is inappropriate for people who are appointed to the trusts by the Secretary of State, will the noble Baroness kindly tell us what redress is available in cases where there has been misappropriation of funds in one way or another? How can the community at large call these people to account, as it would be able to do in the case of local government? There must be some way in which we can secure the same ends.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a lot of monitoring in the National Health Service not only through the NHS executive but also through the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. The noble Lord is probably thinking of the case in Birmingham in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and that in the Wessex Regional Health Authority. In those cases none of the people involved in the difficulties that arose, which were studied by the Public Accounts Committee, is still in post. We take prompt and serious action when it needs to be taken.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, could the Minister give the House her response to the report published yesterday of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts which states that one in 10 health trusts is at present in financial difficulties? Would she give her reaction to the idea that such a statement suggests that there should be some very much more formal system of district audit within the health service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was a health authority chairman for many years. As the chairman of the National Association of Health Authorities, I remember making representations to the Government every year around Christmastime to obtain further allocations from the Treasury to get the National Health Service through that financial year. That has not happened. We now see much tighter control with trusts and health authorities. Indeed, the National Health Service should be congratulated on living largely within its means.

Power Generation: Clean Coal Technologies
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Given that China and developing countries will have to rely on coal for electrical generation, what they are doing to emphasise the importance of research and development of clean burning coal-fired power stations on a worldwide basis.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government attach great importance to the development of clean coal technologies. The Department of Trade and Industry already supports some 115 projects, with a value of over £170 million, involving UK and overseas companies, universities, the European Commission and International Energy Action.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that heartening reply. However, at the back of my mind is the question of whether there is sufficient integration in Europe to ensure that, when the time comes for constructing and paying for some pilot plant, the money will be forthcoming—and forthcoming at once.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we fully recognise the importance of European collaboration in the development of clean coal technologies. Substantial joint projects are already taking place, increasingly with the DTI's research and development programme as the focus.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we pioneered the fluidised bed clean power station technology? Indeed, the developments took place at Grimethorpe near Barnsley. Is he further aware that the Government had a financial interest in it? Can he say what the position is now? Why have we not developed that technology commercially, for home use and for export?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the important issue of the fluidised bed technology mentioned by the noble Lord is now commercially available worldwide. It forms one of the components of the Topping cycle, research into which is being funded by the DTI in partnership with industry.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cost of fitting the flue gas desulphurisation units at Drax power station was more than to build the power station in the first place? Is that kind of expensive, clean technology an option for developing countries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the clean coal technologies are a vital aspect of the development of power stations for the developing countries. It must be so.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the Question asked by my noble friend raises a major issue of international environmental importance? Is he aware that, however much we may do in the developed countries to limit CO2 and other noxious emissions, it could be enormously overtaken by what happens in China and other developing countries? In those circumstances, therefore, is an international effort being made among the developed countries to try to transmit the technology for clean coal development so as to avoid that eventuality?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is indeed, as the noble Lord mentioned, a global issue which must be tackled on that basis. There is tremendous collaboration between the countries of the developed world to produce the requisite technologies for transmission to the developing countries.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House what will be the future of the coal research establishment if and when the Coal Industry Bill becomes law? Will the Minister be able to assure the House that its future is secure?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. We feel that the best opportunities for the UK coal industry in general lie in the private sector, where the full management and investment potential can be realised. We also believe

1535
that the best way of widening the opportunities available for the Coal Research Establishment in the global market is for it to become an independent organisation.

The Elgin Marbles
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commemorate the late Miss Melina Mercouri by facilitating the return of the Elgin Marbles to Athens.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I pay tribute to Miss Mercouri for her work as Minister of Culture. But it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the portions of the Parthenon known as the Elgin Marbles were legally obtained and that they should remain in the British Museum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the question of whether or not they were legally obtained is debatable? Although I cannot hope at the moment that the Government will change their mind on the matter, will she agree to an amendment of the British Museum Act 1963? I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that under the Act the trustees of the British Museum cannot, even if they wished to, agree to anything being exchanged or moved anywhere. If the noble Baroness will agree to make that change, although the trustees may not change their mind at the moment it may become possible for a new set of trustees to agree to the view expressed by Mr. Neil Kinnock on behalf of the Labour Party when he said that a Labour government will return the Marbles to Greece.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first remarks, Lord Elgin removed the Marbles from the Parthenon and brought them to England with the permission of the Ottoman authorities. With regard to the latter part of his question, I say, "Goody, goody", that the statutes of the museums remain as they are.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who was publicly embraced by the late Melina Mercouri. Does my noble friend agree that dissemination throughout the world of the objects of ancient Greek art and literature is an immense asset to Greece? Repatriation of all those objects would diminish her stature because at present they underline the great debt we all owe to Greece for her foundation of western culture.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that I echo the feelings of envy of the entire male section of this House. I can only agree with my noble and learned friend.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, while we are busy commemorating Lord Elgin and Melina Mercouri, are we not in danger of forgetting to commemorate poor old Pericles who started the whole thing off?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what the noble Lord wants to do with Pericles is entirely his own affair.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not the fact that but for the action of a then Member of your Lordships' House—the late Lord Elgin —these lovely objects would have been destroyed? He rescued them from destruction.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure that "destruction" is the right word. I believe that neglect might well have occurred at that time and in the years following. Indeed, until recently the remaining Marbles suffered greatly from pollution.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that it would be quite wrong to return the Marbles to a country which is blockading its neighbour and which is in the process of depriving its former monarch of his citizenship and property, all quite contrary to the professed spirit of the European Community of which it happens to hold the presidency?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord's remarks are somewhat wide of the actual Marbles.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness accept that it is high time all the ex-colonial powers returned the loot that they acquired during the colonial period? If the so-called ownership of the Marbles is traced back to the original transaction, it will be found to be of extremely dubious legality. There are many other antiquities to which that argument applies. We discussed the Rosetta Stone the week before Easter. That was nicked by Napoleon, yet the noble Baroness asserted that the British Museum had a perfectly good legal title to it. Is it not high time to stop this nonsense: and return all these ill-gotten gains to the countries to which they belong?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. In fact, his remarks rather bring into doubt his own marbles.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Athens the Parthenon, the Acropolis and other ancient monuments have suffered and are still suffering badly from the pollution of the air in and around the city? If the Elgin Marbles were returned, they too might suffer.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should perhaps tell my noble friend that the Greek Government are in the process of creating a large museum for many of their antiquities. They are well aware of the environmental dangers that may affect their precious treasures.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we on these Benches believe that these matters are best approached internationally rather than bilaterally. Does the Minister agree that all international museums, such as the British Museum, contain treasures which originated outside their national boundaries? Does she further agree that were we to begin by making a special case of the Elgin Marbles, there would be a flood of more special cases

1537
from Asia, Africa, America and so forth? Would that not mean ultimately the dismemberment of all great international museums in Britain and elsewhere? Should not noble Lords beware of slippery slopes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are fragments of the Parthenon in this country and also in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Vatican. The noble Lord makes an important point. Education, particularly from the point of view of culture for our children and our children's children, is helped by their being able to visit great museums whatever the country.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is wrong in thinking that he is the only Member of your Lordships' House to have had the privilege of being embraced, be it publicly or privately, by that very great lady and a very good and able Minister of Culture?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am wondering whether those noble Lords should join "Keep Sunday Special".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there seems to be an extraordinary ignorance of the developments over the past 10 years which have taken place under the International Council of Museums? Is she aware also that a process of repatriation or return of objects, agreed between the two parties, is taking place all over the world? Australia has returned a great deal of material to Papua. I could go through a whole list of countries which are following that process. We alone internationally refuse to do anything at all. We are out of date. At some time the position must be changed. I hope that the two Front Benchers will study the matter, in which case they may both become a little wiser.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness prepared to consider that it could do our nation a world of good to return the Marbles to the place whence they came, irrespective of whether they were found or stolen? That would be the answer we could give to our children in the future when they ask how the Marbles arrived in this country or why they were returned. In an honourable moment we would repair the damage we did when we took them from their home.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, all the items in our museums were legally obtained. I should point out that museums and galleries are independent institutions. It is for the governing body of each institution to decide whether or not it wishes to return specific objects to specific countries. National museums and galleries are prevented under their governing statutes from disposing of objects in their collections unless they are duplicates or worthless.

London Transport Chairman: Selection
3 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position regarding the appointment of a new chairman of London Transport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government are in the process of selecting a new chairman for London Transport. Sir Wilfrid Newton will continue as chairman until that process is successfully completed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people are amazed at the Government's attitude towards this appointment? Is there not already in place as deputy chairman of London Transport a man with vast experience and great commitment to the London Transport system? He has been recommended by the present chairman and could be appointed tomorrow by the Government if they were not intent on getting revenge against him for being completely committed to London Transport and having the courage to speak against the Government's meanness towards the organisation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's aim throughout has been to ensure that the important task of providing leadership to London Transport is in the most effective hands available. For that reason we decided to cast the net wide in order to make sure we considered all the potential candidates in the field. Dr. Watkins has decided to withdraw as a possible candidate for the chairmanship.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House what moneys will be made available to the new chairman, after he or she is appointed, for investment in London Transport? How will that compare with the investment in London Transport under the last Labour administration?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the new chairman, whoever he may be when we appoint him, will indeed be looking at the next three years during which time the investment we put into London Transport will be of the order of £900 million to £1 billion. That contrasts starkly with the £807 million put in by the last Labour government during all their years of office.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister say in what respect Dr. Watkins is alleged to have fallen short of the qualifications required for this important task, bearing in mind the fact that the existing chairman had displayed every confidence in that man's abilities? Is it not a fact that Dr. Watkins had criticised the level of investment in London Transport and that it is for reasons of independence of mind and the courage that he displayed in depicting his own opinions that he fell foul of Mr. Kenneth Clarke?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there has been speculation that Dr. Watkins has fallen foul of the Government because of the criticism he made. I can assure your Lordships that that is not the case. How the noble Lord can make that criticism in the light of the answer I gave to my noble friend a moment ago, I cannot understand. The important point is that we believe that this vital job, spending around £3 billion of investment money over the next three years in London's transport, should go to the person whom we decide has all the necessary qualities of leadership. We believe it is right and proper that we have a competition to try to establish who that person is. As I said, Dr. Watkins has decided to withdraw from the competition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, has there not already been a competition? Is it not a fact that Dr. Watkins was told in no uncertain terms by the Government that he was not a suitable candidate? In what respect—please will the Minister answer the question I put to him—is it alleged that he fell short of the qualifications that were required?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe it is for me on the Floor of the House to speculate on matters of appointing people which ought to be kept confidential, not only on behalf of the candidate who succeeds but on behalf of all those candidates who do not.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when my right honourable friend comes to appoint a new chairman of London Transport—I have every confidence that he will make the right decision—will he be able to give the new chairman the assurance that the traditional London double-decker bus will be allowed to continue in operation? One hears rumours from the European Commission that that might not be so. Will my noble friend press the new chairman of London Transport particularly to allow the continuation of the traditional Routemaster open-platformed, conductor-operated bus, which is by far the most popular with London travellers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that the new chairman, when appointed, will inherit a programme, currently being undertaken at a value of £10 million by London Transport, to refurbish, in order to extend their life, the 500 or so Routemasters, which are the very popular buses my noble friend refers to. On the general question of double-decked buses and the European Community, this is a complicated field. Currently, discussions are going on in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe body on the whole question of regulations governing double-decked buses. Following a suggestion by the United Kingdom, we have agreed to a Commission request to put forward the kind of requirements that should be in place for double-decker buses. As my noble friend knows, rules and regulations about the design arid so on of all kinds of buses have to be looked at on a European basis. Double-decker buses are no exception. Naturally, our interest is far greater
1540
than any other European country because we have far more double-decker buses than any of our friends in the European Union.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, based on my past experience of nationalised industry, it always seemed that the Government left to the last minute the appointment of a chairman, much to the detriment of those enterprises. Will the noble Lord indicate when the Government started considering who would replace Sir Wilfrid Newton?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have to hand the date on which we started to make this consideration. We knew that Sir Wilfrid was going to retire and had made plans for that retirement. However, we hope to be in a position within the next few months to announce his successor.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, how can the noble Lord be so confident that the new chairman is to be a he?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry. If the noble Baroness is putting in an application, we shall be happy to consider it.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can my noble friend give me a better example of subsidiarity than that the United Kingdom should have sole responsibility for deciding whether or not double-decker buses ply the streets of London?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that we have nearly come to that position. It is important that we have common regulations throughout the Community relating to motor vehicles of all kinds so that motor vehicles can move freely between Community countries when being used either as passenger vehicles or as commercial vehicles and also so that the sale of vehicles at home and abroad is not inhibited by differing rules and regulations in different countries.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, what on earth has that to do with the Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do believe it is about London Transport and it runs buses.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not Dr. Watkins have all the qualifications that the Government really want? He has been a great success in private industry; he has had great commitment to London Transport; and, what is more, in 1993 he was appointed deputy chairman of London Transport. What has happened between the time of his appointment and the time when the Government refused to give him the top job?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position is simply that Dr. Watkins's performance as London Transport's deputy chairman and chief executive is not an issue as far as the Government is concerned. But we do believe that before we make the choice for the top job in this important field we should

1541
take as wide a look as we can for the best possible candidate. As I have explained, Dr. Watkins has now decided to withdraw as a possible candidate.

Coal Industry Bill
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Coal Industry Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 15,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 16 to 21,

Schedule 4,

Clause 22,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 23 to 43,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 44 to 49,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 50 to 52,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 53 to 65,

Schedules 9, 10 and 11,

Clause 66.—(Viscount Goschen.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords: Constitutional Role
3.9 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdalerose to call attention to the constitutional role of the House of Lords; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Motion is concerned with the role of your Lordships' House in the constitution and not with the composition of your Lordships' House. No doubt the two are indirectly interconnected.
Perhaps I may say at the outset how gratified I am at the very distinguished contributions that are to be made to this debate. I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is to wind up on behalf of the Opposition.
I start with the assumption that it is common ground among us all that we desire to continue to live in a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, two questions arise on this Motion. First, what is the role of Parliament in a parliamentary democracy; and, secondly, how far can the House of Commons alone fulfil completely that role? I put it in this way because your Lordships will remember the opening lines of the New Decalogue:
"Thou shalt have one God only,
Who would be at the expense of two?"
1542
If we could get by with one parliamentary Chamber it would be an unnecessary expense to have two. Practically every country in the world has found it necessary to have two Chambers, and that is an age-long tradition.
So I ask first: what are the main functions of Parliament? First, as its name suggests, it is a forum for the discussion of issues of national importance. Secondly, it is a forum where grievances can be canvassed and, if possible, redressed.
Thirdly, it is the forum where supply is voted and ways and means are voted for meeting that supply. No question arises on that in this debate. The other place has exclusively the machinery for both supply and ways and means. Your Lordships' House is very rich in experience of finance, industry, commerce and economics, but we do not have the machinery; that is exclusively in the other place.
Fourthly, one must mention legislation. After all, we are a Chamber of a legislature. Fifthly, and by no means least, your Lordships' Chamber, and Parliament in general, are required as a counter-balance to the Executive, with its pretensions, aggrandisement and ambitions. That is a very important function.
How far can the other place fulfil those various functions? First, one must note two characteristics, among many others, of the House of Commons. It is an elected Chamber and as such it is in the best position, in so far as it is in close touch with the electorate, to voice grievances. There was a notable recent example in the Child Support Act. That was freely criticised in your Lordships' House, which in fact was the main critic. But, as soon as it came into action, the Members of another place were left in no doubt that its provisions were bitterly resented.
Secondly, the other place, while it is elected, immediately becomes an elite, just as your Lordships' House is an elite and the Civil Service is an elite. There is high authority for such a pretension. Your Lordships will remember the words of Burke to the electors of Bristol,
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
So as soon as the electors return the Members of the House of Commons they immediately become an elite. That is their justification for voting their own emoluments, however much that might be disapproved of by the electorate. It is their justification for taking a line on capital punishment which public opinion polls show consistently is not the view of the electorate at large. This aspect of an elite should not be overstated because Members of the other place, with their constituency interests (their "surgeries", as they are now called), are constantly aware of the movement of opinion. Nevertheless, it remains the fact that the House of Commons is an elite and is at times very much at variance with the electorate at large. No doubt noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will provide an additional reason for that.
Except immediately after an election, your Lordships' House, in its composition and by reason, dare I say, of its Cross-Bench element, reflects far more

1543
truly the general colour of political society at large than any other institution. So, although we register that the other place is the elected Chamber, that is not to be used as a magic formula for invalidating any contrary view that your Lordships' House might put forward.
The other element which I wish to emphasise at this stage is that the modern House of Commons is very much a House of career politicians. That has been brilliantly shown in a recent book by Peter Riddell, Honest Opportunism. I need not develop that. It means that Members of another place tend to become out of touch with issues outside politics. They look very much to government business managers for their advancement and are therefore less independent than Members of the other place used to be. Moreover, some of its most talented Members are appointed to your Lordships' House together with a number of other very talented and experienced people. Therefore, your Lordships' House is far more independent of the Executive than the other place can be.
I should like to quote a recent notable sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when he was considering the changes that your Lordships' House had made to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. Referring to a notable example of the value of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord said:
"I do not know what those in another place will think when they read about it"—
that is, our solution—
"However. I daresay that the Government's majority will carry them through. They do not have to withstand quite the independence of mind which characterises this House".—[Official Report, 15/3/94; col. 116.]
That point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
That being so, in my respectful submission, your Lordships are entitled to feel confidence in your independence of mind, your age and your experience and are not necessarily hound to defer automatically to the view of the other place.
That brings me to the question of legislation. It is sometimes said that your Lordships' House is only a revising Chamber. That is grossly misleading. It may be taken to mean that your Lordships are concerned only to register the afterthoughts of Parliamentary Counsel in the Bills that come before us. Your Lordships' House is fully an amending Chamber and your Lordships are fully entitled to feel confidence in that role by reason of the matters to which I have referred. The only limitations are the Parliament Acts, whereby your Lordships can defer the operation of an Act of Parliament for only one year, and the so-called Salisbury Convention, whereby, if there is a commitment in a party manifesto of the Government, your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading—in other words, your Lordships will acknowledge a principle, but your Lordships are by no means bound to defer under that principle to every detail. That point arose recently in relation to the Railways Act, when a clash occurred on a late schedule dealing with pensions which was not canvassed at all in the manifesto.
In conclusion, I desire to say only that the inhibition on your Lordships deploying your full powers and full role is the desire of government business managers to
1544
treat your Lordships' House almost exclusively as a machine for processing government legislation. There often extraordinary Whipping, amendments taken late at night, with the payroll vote kept working in their rooms, and so on. Your Lordships will not be able to play your full role unless there is far more restraint by government business managers. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, over a number of years your Lordships' House has owed a great deal to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and to his contributions to our deliberations. He has added substantially to that contribution by initiating this debate today and by the extremely interesting and forceful speech that he has just delivered.
My only regret—and it is a very real regret—is that we are operating under the time-limited system, the application of which is very difficult when it comes to so enormous a subject as the operation of your Lordships' House. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend had no option but to take the opportunity offered, but I ask your Lordships to have it in mind that this is an occasion when it appears that, although extremely convenient to the usual channels, the time-limited system somewhat frustrates the functioning of your Lordships' House on matters of very great importance—and this is certainly a matter of very great importance.
My noble and learned friend made the point that the use of the expression "a revising Chamber" when referring to the duties of this House could be misleading. However, if it is looked at from the point of view of the function of supervising and, if necessary, improving legislation, I think it is probably an accurate description.
It is a fact that your Lordships' House contains among its Members an enormous assemblage of experience and ability. We have the Law Lords and the right reverend Prelates, both being the leaders of major activities in our country. We are full of former Ministers. We are full of people with high experience in business, in overseas administration and in all the enormous activities which this country can produce. We have, frankly, far more people with practical experience of high responsibility than is the case now in another place. It is because your Lordships' House has such a well-informed, intelligent and experienced membership that it is able very effectively to exercise a revision of legislation.
Your Lordships are only too well aware of the enormous flow of legislation to which we are exposed at the moment, and have been for a number of years. For that reason, it is all the more important that that legislation should be submitted to the scrutiny of people who know what they are talking about, who know what the legislation will do, who have seen the operation of legislation and who have seen it go wrong A very important aspect of your Lordships' House is that we have been able to exercise, and continue to exercise, a very real critical approach to the legislation that comes before us.

1545
It is equally the case that we have a duty to influence public opinion. That is the very great value of many of our general debates. We can influence public opinion when difficult public issues have to be discussed and when it is necessary to guide opinion with the experience of people who know what they are talking about. Again, that is one of the major features of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that your Lordships' House operates extremely well.
I shall not touch on the issue of our composition any more than my noble and learned friend Lord Simon because I know that opinions differ. However, I must say that overall our composition is enormously impressive and is, I think, generally so regarded. I am glad to be able to say that I can claim at any rate a small share in the action which secured the broadcasting of your Lordships' proceedings. Your Lordships may recollect that there was considerable opposition to that. Since the proceedings of your Lordship's House have been broadcast, that has not only greatly enhanced the reputation of the House, but has also exercised a good and extremely salutary influence on public opinion, particularly on difficult and complicated issues. Public opinion formulates itself easily on the broad right-and-wrong type of issue, but on so many of the complex issues of our modern society the guidance which your Lordships' House can give by its debates is of considerable value. Therefore I hope that none of your Lordships will feel that your Lordships' House is other than a major factor in the working of our society.
There is much—if one were not operating under a time limit—one could say and would want to say about the House, but I say, as one who has served in both Houses, that I find it an enormously impressive place in which to serve. It is sometimes perhaps rather humbling to see the enormous body of experience and knowledge that one confronts when one speaks. But, having said that, I know that the House is working extremely well, and to those who propose drastic reforms I would use the words of Lord Melbourne:
"Why not leave it alone?"
3.31 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has earned universal gratitude for choosing a most timely topic for this debate. I have been privileged to become a Member of your Lordships' House at a time when its role is of such marked constitutional importance.
All attempts during this century at any significant legislative reform of Parliament have foundered; but this House has not stood still. It has sometimes shown itself well capable of evolutionary change, of adapting to new needs, as it must if it is to justify its constitutional role. The report of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, contains ample evidence of the success of the work done by the European Communities Committee, some of which we discussed yesterday. The Science and Technology Committee has a high reputation both inside and outside Parliament.
1546
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has demonstrated rapidly the success of that modest but significant experiment.
I hope that it will not appear too bold or forward if I, a comparative and humble newcomer, revert to a suggestion that I made in my maiden speech last November for a modest further experiment to enhance the constitutional role of the House in a way which draws upon the special expertise of noble Lords. I refer to the idea that there should be scrutiny and report by a suitably composed committee on the consistency of pending Bills and subordinate legislation with the international obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the vital fourth function of Parliament to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred. Parliament needs, in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to know what it is talking about in this area as in any other.
Under the European convention, the UK is bound to secure its human rights and freedoms to everyone in this country. The convention is binding on all public authorities: it binds Parliament as well as the Executive and the Judiciary.
No one could fairly criticise this House for failing to take the convention seriously by seeking to give it direct effect in our law. Of the 12 Bills introduced into Parliament since 1971 to incorporate the convention into domestic law, most have been introduced into this House and not into the other place, and four of them by Lord Wade from these Benches.
The Law Lords—the second branch of government —have also done their best to give effect to the convention by presuming, when interpreting ambiguous legislation, that Parliament must have intended to comply with rather than to flout the convention. What our courts cannot do, of course, is to strike down legislation inconsistent with the convention, for that would be contrary to parliamentary sovereignty; nor, in the absence of incorporation, do our courts yet feel constitutionally able to limit broadly delegated Ministers' powers so as to comply with the convention.
What happens when a breach of the convention occurs because of the primary or subordinate legislation enacted by this House as one of the three Estates of the Realm? What happens, in other words, where Parliament exercises its sovereign legislative powers in breach of the convention? The only remedy is for the individual victim to have recourse to the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights. That is not an uncommon happening. There have been many instances of proven breaches of the convention by the United Kingdom resulting from primary or subordinate legislation for which this House is jointly responsible with the other place. None of those involved a deliberate breach of the convention by Parliament. Neither House considered the potential impact of the convention during the passage of any of the relevant primary or subordinate legislation. The breaches occurred by legislative inadvertence.
There is something seriously wrong with our system of parliamentary government when the executive and judicial branches have regard to the convention, but the

1547
sovereign Parliament itself lacks any means of properly and efficiently considering whether primary legislation or delegated powers are likely to require or authorise breaches of the convention. The reality is that Parliament does not consider the convention when enacting legislation, because Parliament lacks any machinery to take the convention systematically into account in the course of its legislative work.
As last year's authoritative report of the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process, Making the Law, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, suggested, it would be worth considering whether the powers and resources of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee might be enlarged, to enable it to consider potential legislative conflicts with the convention. The commission pointed out that such a task raised questions of a legal nature, not involving political judgments, that the scrutiny committee (with enlarged terms of reference) could monitor, if thought appropriate.
That is the sort of constitutional role which Members of this House could perform expertly and efficiently. It would not be a substitute for incorporation, but it would provide an effective prophylactic means of reducing the likelihood of breaches of the convention by Parliament. It would discourage governments from introducing constitutionally dubious measures; it would enable parliamentarians to take better informed legislative decisions; and it would raise public awareness of the constitutional values at stake. I submit that it would enhance our constitutional role for the benefit of our fellow citizens.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would have put my name down to speak in the debate if it were only to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose untiring energy on matters with which he is concerned—he is concerned largely with human rights and proper parliamentary procedure —has the admiration of us all.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I often think that every time the noble and learned Lord rises, the body of his late Majesty King Henry VIII turns in its grave. The noble and learned Lord is of course an ideal Cross-Bencher—he mentioned the duties of a Cross-Bencher—because he so often opposes the Government, a habit which I hope will not endure after the next general election.
I apologise for the fact that my small contribution is upon the same subject as that upon which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, addressed the House, but I shall try to deal with it in very much more general terms. In the 17 years during which I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House, I have noted often the contribution that noble Lords have to make in the cause of human freedom, human rights. Your Lordships have taken it upon yourselves to act in place of a written constitution, which we do not have. It is a little extraordinary that, coupled with the absence of a written constitution, we have nothing by way of an Act of
1548
Parliament which describes the rights of United Kingdom citizens. That puts us in a singular and, I think, undesirable position. It means that we who have signed the convention expose our citizens to the almost unbearable task, if a right under the convention has been breached, of having to go to the court in Strasbourg. Time, obviously, is not one of the greatest advantages of that court and I, as a practitioner, can inform the House of that. Also, of course, the expense of doing so is beyond the ordinary means of a United Kingdom citizen. There is no legal aid to go to the court in Strasbourg.
What does it mean? Even with those disadvantages, because we cannot go directly under our domestic law and plead for human rights guaranteed by the convention, and despite those difficulties it means that we feature in an unfortunate championship. We are the champions in that we have had the greatest number of judgments entered against us in the European court of any country that has signed the convention. That is not fair to our reputation. Of all countries, I proudly say that we have at heart human rights more than, or certainly as much as, any other country. Why we should not be able to go to our local courts as part of our domestic law and plead the convention, I know not.
The Law Society, of which I am proud to he a member, has taken the matter very seriously indeed, purely on the basis of accessibility to justice. It is a definite fact that without the ability to go to our domestic courts a considerable amount of hardship is endured and our reputation is adversely affected.
This House has the ability to push the issue forwards. The Law Society has written to the Home Secretary giving all its reasons as to why that should he done. The Home Secretary has replied—a little late, I believe it took some five months, but he has replied. In the reply he pleads, among other arguments, the vagueness of the convention. If it were so vague that it had no proper meaning or enforceability, why did we sign it? If it is a convention which can be dealt with by our courts, ought not it to be so?
My contribution has lasted five minutes and in an endeavour to persuade fellow speakers to copy my example, I sit down.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I share a room with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and have lived with the issue for some months, so one might say that I have been subpoenaed to speak in this debate. I do so with some temerity because I have been in your Lordships' House for only two years. I have endeavoured to follow the admirable advice which I used to give to Members of the other place who complained to me as Speaker that I never called them. It was the advice of Disraeli to one of his disgruntled supporters. He said:
"It's better for the House to wonder what you would have said rather than why you said it".
In our country we have a habit of acquiring our institutions by chance rather than by design. I have no doubt that in relation to today's debate, if we were

1549
starting from scratch very few of us would be sitting here in your Lordships' House by birth or by appointment.
Some of your Lordships may know that my father, who led the last successful strike of tailors against the sweatshop conditions of the day in 1912, was all for abolishing the House of Lords. He was not wrong about many things, but I think he was profoundly wrong about that.
I understand and respect the views of those who think that this should be an elected Chamber, but if it were we should think through the consequences. First, an elected Chamber would quite rightly seek and acquire powers. I wonder whether the other place would be happy with that. When I was there, there was not much discontent about the European assembly because it had no or very few powers. But now that it is an elected parliament, there is considerable concern. Secondly, an elected House would demand and should get better facilities and better accommodation. Thirdly, it would be vastly more expensive. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his Written Question of 17th December last year asking at col. WA 155 what was the cost of running the European Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I remind your Lordships of the Answer: an MEP costs our country £919,000 a year; a Member of the House of Commons costs £261,000; our House costs £38,000 per active Member. So I think that we give very good value for money!
In relation to the debate, could it be better done? The answer must be a qualified "Yes". I believe that we need better accommodation and facilities to fulfil our role and function of refining or revising legislation and complementing rather than duplicating the work of the other place. I hope that I may mention a private conversation I had with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. He said that he had been here seven years before he managed to get a room to himself. That is not only wrong but mean to a former Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. We should definitely have better accommodation.
There should be better facilities for our wives. Many of us have to stay here fairly late at night and sometimes our wives come by car to pick us up and take us home but they have nowhere to go while they wait. Something should be done about that. I see no reason why we should not try to obtain the Queen's Robing Room as a meeting place for our wives. I see some noble Lords tut-tutting at that, but I leave the thought with the House.
Furthermore, the Opposition parties should have more support to enable them to hold the Government to account. I believe that every department should be covered by an individual Minister. I pay a warm tribute to the Ministers who now cover several departments, but is it really fair on them and on the House? It would cost very little more and I think it would certainly improve our functions in this House.
I do not believe that we should be paid. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the appointment system which we have enables men and women of very
1550
great experience and distinction, who would not otherwise be able to stand for an elected Parliament, to participate in the government of our country.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned Edmund Burke. I give your Lordships a less well-known quotation:
"There can be no independence of mind without independence of means".
That is not to say that the other place does not have men and women with independence of mind. Bob Cryer, who was sadly killed in an accident yesterday, was certainly a man with considerable independence of mind.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned that there are those of us in this House who have had experience outside the realm of Parliament, where I sat for some 28 years. I remember when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, invited me to join the Whips' Office way back in 1967, he shook me to my roots by saying that as a new Whip, I should never forget that we put the interests of our country first, even though we had to fight our own party. He said that we opposed only if we believed it to be against the best interests of our country.
I had the great privilege of serving in an Indian cavalry regiment—the 19th King George V's Own Lancers. On the walls of Chetwode Hall in the Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun are these words:
"The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time. The safety and welfare of the men you command comes next, always and every time; your own safety and welfare comes last, always and every time".
Those words were engraved upon the hearts of all of us who were privileged to serve in the Indian Army. I believe that they are the guiding spirit which should influence all of us who sit in this House or the other place. If that were so, I believe that we would be held in much higher regard by the public whom we represent in the House of Commons and here in the House of Lords.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Weatherill—and I insist on calling him my noble friend although he sits on those Benches—I am a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, certainly in comparison with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and others. Therefore, what I have to say is based not so much on a long study of your Lordships' House but much more on my understanding of the role of Parliament as a whole.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, gave his understanding of that role under five different headings. I should like to put the matter in a slightly different way. When I was in the other place, constituents would sometimes write to me to complain about what was being done by the government. They would finish their letters by saying, "You run the country, why don't you put it straight?" My reply to that was always, "I do not run the country; the Government do that. All I am, as your Member of Parliament, is a paid critic"—now

1551
unpaid. That is my belief as to what Parliament is for. It does not run the country but it stops the Government doing things that the people do not want.
Government can do only what Parliament allows it to. Let us face it, we have had quite a number of examples of that here in the past few weeks. In my judgment, it must be right that the elected House has the final say. It must be allowed eventually to prevail over any of the views that we, in this non-elected House, express; however strongly we express them and, for that matter, however good they are.
So it is. That is what happens. Our power, in effect, is to ask the other place to think again. We can do that only once. That process may take only a day. In an extreme case, it can take a year. But the other place has to think again and it seems to me that there needs to be someone in the country who can say that to any elected Chamber. It is my view that this House is the best instrument which can be devised to do that.
I give your Lordships two reasons why I hold that view. The first—and this has been touched on before —is simply the volume of legislation. I can produce no supporting figures but it is my firm belief that since I was first elected to the other place 39 years ago every year, with possibly only one or two exceptions, the volume of legislation has increased. Not only the volume, but the length and complexity of it has increased. I believe that we have now reached the stage at which it is virtually impossible for Parliament, even as it is present constituted, adequately and properly to consider it.
The other place certainly cannot do that, even though it has those excellent weapons available to the government business managers—the closure and the guillotine—in order to get legislation through. That means that the legislation cannot be properly considered, and I do not believe that it is or see how it can be. Therefore, it is essential to have another Chamber—and it is the House of Lords—which can do at least some of the work that is left undone.
I am sure that we can all recall examples of legislation that has been passed and subsequently found to be defective. That reflects on both Houses—that we have not considered legislation as well as we should have done in spite of working long hours and in spite of our very best efforts. Of course, that is the fault of the government—and I am not talking about any particular government because all governments in power do the same thing.
That leads me to the second reason why I believe that your Lordships' House is as good an instrument for giving proper consideration to legislation that can be devised. One of the defects of too much legislation being passed too quickly is that, very often, it takes quite a long time for those who will be affected by it to realise just how much it will affect them. This House has a unique role to play in that area. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to the experience that is available here. One only has to look round the Chamber to see the vast range of practical experience of life outside these walls which is available to be brought to bear on the consideration of legislation. In my view, that is far wider than is available in the House of Commons
1552
and it is available to an extent that I do not: see how else it could be provided. As the noble and learned Lord said, we are not talking about the composition of the House but such consideration would not be possible by an elected Chamber. Your Lordships' House can and does provide that consideration to the best of its ability and I believe that it works remarkably well.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter concluded his remarks by quoting Lord Melbourne. I borrow a phrase from our cousins across the Atlantic:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the last speaker and the speaker before him spoke with great authority about the House of Commons, where they were both so pre-eminent. I never achieved that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has fled. I now see that he has returned. The noble and learned Lord's barnstorming talents in 1945 prevented my arrival at the House of Commons, so that I speak from 48 years' experience here. That is nothing very much compared with the 60 years' experience of my noble friend Lord Listowel, but it is longer than those who have addressed the House hitherto.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to whom we are so indebted, will not mind if I say that it is impossible to discuss the House of Lords in a real sense when we are talking about its composition. I believe that we have the best debates in the world—that is, debates in the sense of being the most valuable to the country that you can find anywhere —but the worst voting system. However, both spring from our composition.
If one looks at the composition of this House, it will be seen that there are four times as many who have taken the Tory Whip as the Labour Whip. If one asks how many hereditary Peers (Peers by succession) there are, one is told that there are 750 and that 13 have taken the Labour Whip. I have never been able to count up to 13, but that is the figure I have been given. It makes nonsense of the voting system. One cannot properly discuss the role of this House without looking at its composition.
However, I am all for trying to improve the voting system without damaging the quality of our debates. But that needs a little thought. I am certainly someone who thinks that the hereditary representatives will eventually have to go, although I do not think that they will go very soon. I speak with some impartiality here, having been made a Peer and also having inherited a title. I am not biased one way or the other.
I believe that the hereditary peerage will have to go, but probably not in my lifetime. I believe that the Labour Party will have so many other things to do when it comes to power that those peerages will be spared for many a year. Therefore, it is not an immediate prospect, but it will happen eventually. The system is quite indefensible: 750 hereditary Peers and only 13 receiving the Labour Whip. It is ludicrous and makes nonsense of the system. One cannot imagine anyone drawing up such a constitution today; but there it is.

1553
I now have something to say with which I believe some of my noble friends may not agree. However, I must offer my testimony based on my experience. Everyone who comes to this House admires not only the quality of the debates in the sense of the learned contributions from experts in many different fields, but also the courtesy and the civilised relationships between those who oppose one another. Further, they admire the kindness, which I should say expresses itself just as strongly among the devoted staff as among Members of the House. Those are fine qualities. I venture to think that the aristocratic tradition here is in no small way responsible for those qualities. If eventually hereditary peerages disappear from the House, I hope that those qualities will somehow be carried over into the new institution.
When we have a new institution, I shall certainly be strongly opposed to any elected Chamber. That would be a ghastly kind of second rate version of the European Parliament. I cannot imagine most of the eminent people who give extraordinary quality to our debates—although, I suppose, a few of the veteran politicians might gravitate here—standing for election, especially in later life. Therefore, the quality of our debates would go down if we had an elected Chamber. It must be an appointed Chamber.
There is no easy answer. The idea that the Prime Minister of the day should have complete charge of the appointments could work out very badly. I was rather surprised when I looked at the figures today to see how greatly the number of Conservative Peers has increased. Indeed, when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, spoke here, I remember that she referred to the number of people whom she had nominated. In a long period of Conservative rule, there is a great increase in the Conservative representation: that is exactly what has occurred. We must find a system; but I am not saying that I have the ideal answer. We shall need to have much discussion on the matter. I believe that there should be an advisory body and that it should not be left entirely to the Prime Minister of the day.
Nevertheless, having been in this House for 48 years, I can say that I have loved the life here and will always love it. If anyone is entitled to say that he feels part of the House of Lords, I believe that I can put myself forward in that respect. I do not think that we have an ideal Chamber. As I said, the composition is ludicrous. I hope that it will change in time and that our great traditions will somehow be carried on.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I rise to speak now, somewhat to my surprise, but it somehow always happens that I either speak immediately after or before the noble Earl, Lord Longford. When I was young enough to ride a bicycle, I was taught that the great thing was never to wonder how the thing kept upright. I feel much the same about debates on the constitutional position of the House of Lords. We may regret discussing so curious a phenomenon, but as we are no longer reported—despite the somewhat optimistic remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter
1554
about our ability to influence public opinion—that means that all we are saying now is in private. I see that my noble friend wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged. As my noble friend was good enough to refer to me, can he tell us whether he also bears in mind the very considerable amount of coverage by the broadcasting agencies of debates and speeches in the House. Does he take that into account?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I take it into account, although I have no method of judging how important it is. It does not seem to me to compensate for columns of print as used to be the case in the more serious newspapers.
We are discussing a highly anomalous body. No one trying to invent a second Chamber would have suggested such a composition. Now that we send people to Eastern Europe, and so on, to explain the merits of constitutional government, I sometimes wonder how they explain the House of Lords. Nevertheless, we perform a useful function which has been described as either "amending" or "revising". However, the risk is that it is too easy to say, "Well we are a revising Chamber or an amending Chamber". I say that because we may mean quite different things by those words.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few practical examples. We may have a Bill which starts in the House of Commons and which appears here in the usual ill-digested state in which that place leaves it, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, reminded us. We then improve the Bill and return it to the other place for reconsideration. That is the conventional view of our role in revision. But what happens as in the two recent cases when Bills started their passage in this House? I refer to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill which was substantially amended and to the Education Bill which was amended almost out of recognition. What does the other place do? It is not having a second thought: it is having a first thought. What ought it to do?
Of course, one can take different views on the matter. Only yesterday in the debate on the Education Bill my noble friend the Minister said:
"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".—[Official Report, 12/4/94; col. 1460.]
But that is a fiction, as the Government who command the majority in the other place can, if they wish, replace our text by their own preference.
My final example is even more topical. We understand that yesterday in another place the Home Secretary, in order to fight off a particular amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill (which will shortly confront us), agreed to introduce a clause roughly to the same effect as that proposed in the House of Lords. That was sufficient to prevent the amendment which he disliked, feared or disapproved of being moved. But what happens if it comes to the House of Lords and the Government amendment is not accepted? For all I know there may be devotees of violent videos in this House. There are certainly libertarians who might come up from the backwoods and who are against any form of

1555
regulation. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, is not in the Chamber as I am sure he would not vote for the government amendment on libertarian grounds.
We are in a way being asked to revise and amend in a quite different set of circumstances from those in which the phrase is usually used. In other words, it is important that we do not think that by saying, "Well, it is all right; we are an amending House and a revising House", we have solved all the problems, because the problems will arise in a different form in the case of every piece of legislation.
My next point has been referred to many times by noble Lords with even longer experience in this House than I have. My regret is that we cannot exercise that role in relation to the delegated legislation which is even more plentiful in our days than primary legislation.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join with those who have thanked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate. I am bound to say straightaway that I am among those who think that one cannot really separate the constitution of the House of Lords from its composition. When I first came to the House of Lords I was struck by its immense capacity for self-congratulation. My initial reaction was that it was a kind of overweening pride but I found myself in the course of time to be quite wrong about that. What it is, I think, is a consciousness of our own absurdity. Because of that we appear to find it constantly necessary to justify ourselves in one way or another. That is why, I believe, we are so much given to self praise, forgetting that it is no recommendation outside this House.
I have also discovered in my fairly long political career that the quality of debate is often in inverse ratio to the importance of the subject being discussed. That was particularly so in the House of Commons. When issues of great importance were being debated speeches were often passionate, upsetting, rubbishy and had no quality at all. If one wanted to hear good debate in the House of Commons one had to attend on Fridays. Then one could listen to the speeches of civilised Members such as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when engaged in a debate along with the late Dick Crossman for example. The debates in the House of Commons were of high quality so long as everyone was relaxed and realised that at the end of the day the discussion was not of great importance. When immensely important matters were being debated, speeches became scrappy and passionate and did not read well in Hansard. Therefore it may be that we have high quality debate in this House because we recognise that ultimately we are not the deciding Chamber. I believe that for as long as that continues to be the case our debates will have shape and substance.
When I say that I and the Labour Party are of the opinion that this House should he an elected Chamber I am conscious that one of the things we may have to sacrifice, should that come about, is the quality of the debates. However, that is a sacrifice which it is proper
1556
to make if, as a consequence, we obtain a Chamber which is defensible generally and not merely inside itself.
The wisest of the many wise comments Winston Churchill made was when he commented that we are, more than we know, the creatures of our institutions. That statement perhaps holds more truth than we recognise. Those of us who have been Members of the House of Commons have to be careful riot to imbibe the traditions, courtesies and other characteristics of this Chamber and in so doing forget the impulse which sent us originally into politics and which may be quite different from the establishment traditionalism which properly informs this Chamber.
This Chamber is part of the establishment. If one has any doubt about that, one has only to compare the development of the Chamber when Conservative and Labour governments are respectively in power. The House of Lords is very different in each case. We have an Opposition who are sometimes extraordinarily effectual. However, to be effectual they have to persuade some government supporters, and certainly Members on the Cross-Benches, of the correctness of the position they hold. If a Labour government are in power they can be defeated at any time in this House without difficulty. That position simply cannot be, sustained. However, it is pleasant to be a Member of the House of Lords. I believe a Cross-Bench Peer once said that being a Member of the House of Lords was like taking a hot bath. I cannot remember who said it, so perhaps we had better forget it.
In 1908, the year, incidentally, when I was born, the Labour Party accepted a resolution pledging the party to abolish the House of Lords. Following the exact words Arthur Henderson had used in the Commons, it resolved that,
"the Upper House being an irresponsible part of the Legislature and of necessity representative of interests opposed to the general well-being, is a hindrance to national progress arid ought to be abolished".
We can now see what immense progress the Labour Party has made in the period between 1908 and 1994. Now the Labour Party says:
"The House of Lords, even in its current form, is a valuable revising chamber, its debates are often of high quality precisely because of the different experience of its members, and a second chamber is a necessary and important check on the power of the first. But it must be made democratically acceptable. We therefore propose replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber".
I share that view rather than the view expressed by the Labour Party in 1908. I have grown a little older and wiser since 1908.
I have just referred to the position of my party as regards the House of Lords and for once I am entirely in favour of that position. The suggestion sometimes made that an elected second Chamber must of necessity be in conflict with another place is, I believe, not necessarily correct. This House can be constitutionally subservient to another place and its electorate can be quite different to that of another place. I believe it is possible to devise a system whereby this Chamber could acquire the standing outside the Chamber which noble Lords so often, and in the view of some people, quite rightly, claim that it has inside the Chamber.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I still have a feeling of total disbelief each time I walk through the door of the Chamber. Therefore I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for giving me the opportunity to tell your Lordships how I as a newcomer see your Lordships' House. As with most members of the public, but also as a long time political activist, my attention has been almost entirely focused on the other place. It is a great pity that the television does not devote more time to showing the public what your Lordships' House does, and more particularly how it does it. The television could emphasise how speakers in this House can make speeches without constant interruptions from Members asking them to give way. That is because in this House anyone who wishes to speak can usually do so.
What is more important, however, is the decorum effected by your Lordships' system of self-regulation and self-restraint. That is not to say that our debates and exchanges are bland. That is far from being the case. Political points are made with full-blooded vigour. While courtesy is the order of the day, I have listened in admiration to the barbed insults delivered with wit but at the same time with the point of a rapier—not by swinging a battle axe or a mace; or dare I say the Mace?
What the public would see is contributions from Members of your Lordships' House drawn from a wide range of long-term public and political service and with experience in commerce, industry, education, health, foreign affairs and many other fields, as many noble Lords have already said this afternoon. One has only to look at the list of Members' special interests in Dod's to see what a vast pool of specialised knowledge is available to this House. Even the so-called backwoodsmen, who may attend only infrequently, join in debates when they have something relevant to contribute. In other words, this is a place where people speak because they have something to say not just because they feel that they have to say something.
Certainly it is not a criticism to say that the other place does not have the time for the detailed Starred Questions, the mini-debates generated by Unstarred Questions or informed short debates such as this one.
Your Lordships' House has already been called a revising chamber, but it is much more than that. It is a place where governments can be told to stop and think again, as has happened dramatically in the past few months.
Whatever may have been the situation in the past, your Lordships' House does not provide an automatic majority for the Conservative Party. Furthermore, when the Conservative Party was not in office, the Salisbury Convention ensured that government legislation did not suffer the same gridlock or stalemate that the elected United States Senate can and does impose on the President. This is not some condescending act of self-denial. It is one of the many facets of the unwritten constitution by which this country runs, and runs very well.
In a few weeks' time your Lordships will discuss the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, a central feature
1558
of which is a highly modified and circumscribed version of the so-called Henry VIII clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is a doughty defender of constitutional propriety, and in preparation for this debate I read the speech that he made on 6th February 1989 on the Children Bill. His efforts, and those of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham and others, resulted in the creation in 1992 of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which is one of several committees of your Lordships' House which provide invaluable and impartial service to both Houses of Parliament.
If newspaper reports are to be believed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been persuaded to modify one of the right of silence provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill merely by the Lord Chief Justice indicating that it would not be acceptable to your Lordships.
There are those who have reservations about the position of the hereditary Peers. However, I firmly believe that the aspects of your Lordships' qualifications, experience and service that I have just described more than offset the unelected manner in which we all find ourselves in this House. The fact that your Lordships can and do exercise your personal judgment free of the tyranny of the Whips is more of an expression of the will of the elector in the street than those Members of the other place who campaign on a manifesto and then, as soon as they are elected, turn on their own parties' policies and elected leaders. Your Lordships' House stands as an independent bulwark against extremism at either end of the political spectrum. Those who advocate abolition are, contrary to what they may think, proposing a course which is a danger to democracy. No government should be left without a totally independent brake on its activities.
Nothing remains unchanged forever although, as the American proverb says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963 were the last fundamental changes to a system which had otherwise worked well for centuries and has worked well ever since. If, and I stress "if" because it is not for me to say, any constitutional changes are needed then they have to be made after discussion between all the political parties and the Cross-Benches. Such changes can be made only after a full, detailed and impartial study, perhaps by a Royal Commission. Such changes as are recommended to be desirable can be made to the extent, and only to the extent, that is mutually agreed. Emphatically and definitely no changes to the very basis of the structure of this ancient Parliament should ever be made for doctrinaire reasons or in an attempt to obtain some political advantage.
4.24 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, the occasional glance in the mirror is no bad thing. It could, of course, give rise to indulgent expressions of vanity, but I believe that regular introspection by your Lordships' House must be healthy. To that end I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for once again calling attention to the constitutional role of this

1559
House. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the noble and learned Lord is an acknowledged authority. Although I am a solicitor, I do not profess in any way to be an expert in constitutional law. I am, however, a hereditary Peer, one of four, including the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to contribute to this afternoon's debate.
In recent years these debates have appeared to draw on a regular core of speakers, several of whom contributed to a most interesting series of articles on the subject of "Looking at the Lords" which appeared in The House Magazine of 7th March. Most of the arguments have been relentlessly marched into battle on a number of occasions. I should like to set a slightly different pace in my remarks today by addressing, first, the need for a bicameral legislature and, secondly, the effectiveness of your Lordships' House as currently constituted.
I am acutely aware that the debate focuses on the role rather than the composition of your Lordships' House, but I would like to make brief mention of the role of hereditary Peers. Your Lordships' primary function is and, of course, always will be to act as a revising Chamber and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon mentioned, an amending chamber —to coin a phrase, 'to make the other place think again'. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 formally recognised our subordinate nature to the other place. It is our role, and the role of most second chambers, to check and balance the powers of government and to be complementary rather than to be competitive, a point made by my noble friend Lord Weatherill.
There are some of us, I would add, who would like the other place not only to think again but also, on occasions, to act again. Some noble Lords, and I include myself among them, were disappointed that the House felt unable last year to persevere with its amendments to the Railways Bill—now the Railways Act. Others have expressed concern that this House does not more often review statutory instruments but leaves that task entirely to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It seems incongruous that we should employ our rights of review on primary but not secondary legislation. That said, however, our role is more persuasive than directive. So often there is a delicate balance to be found. I join in expressing my great sadness at the tragic loss yesterday of the honourable Member for Bradford South who chaired the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
If one point of a second chamber is to scrutinise legislation, then I dare suggest that it is a role which the House plays with distinction. This is an effective House. As the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, pointed out in his closing speech in the debate on the Salisbury doctrine on 19th May last year, well over 50 per cent. of our time is spent reviewing legislation in Committee and on Report. General debates account for 16 per cent. of our time. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned, the work of the European Communities Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, and other Select Committees of your Lordships' House is rightly acknowledged and respected, not just by the other place but by the public at large. Indeed, it is all time well spent.
1560
In a similar debate last year, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that we should push collectively far less legislation which ought to be "more elegantly and precisely drafted". That is a sentiment I enthusiastically support. The point has been well made that much of the legislation arriving in your Lordships' House is clumsily drafted.
If we accept the paramount need for a bicameral system, then a second question arises: does this House still fit the bill at the end of the 20th century? There are many who propose reform; and that is not a word that I believe we should fear.
As a Cross-Bencher who took his seat in 1978, and. who has spent most of his life living in South Africa, I dare say that I am precisely the sort of Member whom some reformers would wish to remove from this House. However, I humbly submit that my presence in this Chamber illustrates in a small way some advantages of the hereditary system. First and foremost, it ensures a diversity in this House which is quite unmatched by any elected form of legislature in the world. From a personal perspective, I hope that my own experience of South Africa qualifies me to speak with a depth of understanding of southern African affairs which no amount of reading or study could provide. Other noble Lords have their own fields of interest and, without any hint of vanity or complacency, I think it is right that we should acknowledge that that diversity is our greatest strength.
There is also diversity of age: young and old sit side by side. There is a diversity of expertise and experience. The hereditary principle, I humbly suggest, should be protected as the buttress, not only of this precious diversity but also of an ongoing tradition—one could almost say an inherited tradition—into the next century, and beyond.
There is much more that I would wish to have spoken about in the debate today; I have many more points to raise. However, in closing I would point out that the history of this country tends towards evolution rather than revolution: gradual change by consensus rather than by sudden and compulsive acts of conviction. The House of Lords, in many respects, is a creature of evolution, hewn by the experience of passing years. If it is to be reformed, I hope that it will be done by consensus rather than by confrontation. I hope that if this House is to be reformed, it is not because an alternative system seems more democratically acceptable but because such a "reformed" system would be more effective. I challenge the contention that another Chamber would be more effective than this Chamber. For all its quirks and anachronisms, this House plays its full role within a bicameral system. It works. That is a fact which all reformers should bear in mind.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I find myself almost entirely in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. The points of view that he expressed are well based. They fit in with the experience that we have all had.
We all accept the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, as the expert on the workings of this House. I

1561
should like to think that when he chose the subject for debate today he had in mind the continuance of this Chamber as we know it, apart from the individual criticisms which may justifiably be directed at it.
Some years ago an Italian journalist came to ask me a question. He said that because I had headed a local authority and had 25 years' experience in the House of Commons, 20 years in the House of Lords and five years in the European Parliament, I was the only person in the United Kingdom who had had experience of the workings of all the institutions which contribute to the governance of the country. His question was this: in the light of that experience, which of those institutions carried out their remit most effectively? I did not hesitate. Of the four, I said that the one which carried out the remit most effectively and constructively was the British House of Lords. There was no argument about that. I believe that this House is unequalled in its impartial and constructive approach to carrying out the tasks entrusted to it. The fact that the composition of this Chamber consists in part of hereditary Peers is a strength rather than a weakness. The hereditary Peers produce the youth in this House. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is a good example.
In quoting certain figures, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, sought to imply that every hereditary Peer automatically became a member of the Conservative Party. I found that comment somewhat amusing. I do not know whether Stanley Baldwin believed that his descendants would finish up anywhere other than on the Conservative Benches; but they did. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, himself sits on the Benches of a Party which he states is under-represented. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is not an accredited member of the Conservative Party in the sense that he expresses the view that he truly believes is right, based on his own personal experience.
Let us consider the European Parliament. I believe that nominated Members, as distinct from elected Members, are more representative and more likely to give the guidance which would be in the interests of Britain as well as of Europe as a whole. Too many of my colleagues—for whom I had great respect—whose individual ability and knowledge were of the highest standard spent too much of their lives living in other countries. Yet that factor was produced as a great advantage for being a Member of the European Parliament. I felt that there were times when someone steeped in British as well as European needs was required. I believe that such a contribution came better from nominated Members.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Lester, made very good points with regard to some of the weaknesses which exist in our present set-up. However, those weaknesses are details. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, hoped that we would consider this House as an institution. Any institution or machine which is dependent upon people will never be perfect because people are not perfect; they are the opposite of perfection. All that one can hope for is the
1562
minimum of imperfections. One hopes that those who are more acceptable, and perhaps hold more to truth, form the majority.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is right. The strength of this place is that it has evolved. If one had attempted a written constitution, we would not have arrived at this system. However, I do not believe that the result would have been as good. If one had wished to write such a constitution one could not have anticipated the problems, the developments and the different reactions. The fact that this House has grown and has developed from practical day-to-day experience is its strength. That is why I hope that it will continue.
I should like to be assured on one point that interests me. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Leader of the Opposition, is to wind up in this debate today. The noble Lord's contributions in the past have always been of a very high standard indeed. I should like to know whether he will be speaking for himself today or whether the fact that he is the Leader of the Opposition means that his speech will be a Labour Party contribution on the vital question of whether we should continue to have a House of Lords.
I remind noble Lords of an anecdote that I believe to be true. In 1908 the Labour Party at its conference accepted a resolution to abolish the House of Lords. One of the older members went to Mr. Attlee (as he then was)—a very sound, "feet on the ground" Prime Minister if ever there was one—to ask: "When are we going to carry out what we have pledged ourselves to do?". Mr. Attlee replied, "What is that?". His questioner said, "Abolish the House of Lords". Mr. Attlee asked, "When did we do that?". "Oh", he said, "40 years ago". "Ah", said Mr. Attlee, "there doesn't seem to be any great urgency about it, does there?". I hope that that will be the mood which will flow from this debate, and the mood of any actions which may be taken later on.
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate on such a basic issue; namely, what our job is and, following from that, what changes should be made to enable us to do it better.
For a 600 year-old institution over which the last rites have been frequently read we are in remarkably robust health. That is clearly due to the introduction of life Peers. In gardening terms, it is like giving a plant an annual mulch of compost. The virtues of good compost are that it is mature and well balanced. Those qualities were especially evident in this House's treatment of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which in its virgin state was not fit to be let loose on the public. The weight of the expert opinion that came from all sides of the House was enough to enable the Bill to be pummelled into an acceptable shape. In that process the Opposition Front Benches played a leading role and showed the fundamental importance of an effective opposition in a parliamentary democracy. They form an essential part of the framework of government.

1563
However, the value of that role is not reflected in their remuneration—because they do not get any. To be accurate, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip are paid a salary. But it takes more than two to fill an Opposition Front Bench. The same disparity between contribution and financial recognition applies of course to prominent Back-Benchers. The Top Salaries Review Body accepted that our system of allowances is adequate for those Peers whose work in the House is very much a part-time affair but totally inadequate for full-time working Peers.
This issue deserves serious attention. It would be prudent of the Government to take action now, if merely for reasons of self-interest. As they well know, the political pendulum swings sooner or later. When it does, they will find themselves sitting on the Benches opposite, possibly suffering from withdrawal symptoms. I believe that we have an increasingly important role to play, and that adequate financial reward is a necessary part of the acceptance of that role.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, not for the first time, this House has great cause to be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord symbolises many of those things that entitle this House to be proud of itself. An institutional pride is a necessary part of the equipment of any working institution. That pride has been in evidence today. There is much to justify it.
This House's track record is extremely good. The House said that the poll tax would be a mess. It was. It said that the football membership Bill would be a mess. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if I remember correctly, was in the forefront of that debate. Thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the mess did not actually happen. The House said that the Child Support Act would be a mess; and it is.
Last night this House did even better. In the final debate on the passage of the Education Bill, we saw that all the interested parties had talked the matter out until they had achieved a common interest and welcomed what was happening. That did credit to the whole House, and especially to the Minister in charge of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It shows the advantage of the weaker party discipline in this House.
We have not heard for a very long time the traditional cry of "Peers versus people". That is because—so far as the opinion polls can tell us—when the two Houses disagree, nine times out of 10 the people agree with the Peers. On the measure to impose charges on eye tests and dental checks, in the opinion polls 87 per cent. sided with this House. It raises the question as to whether what we ought to be thinking about is how far another place represents the people.
Yet, for all that we express an institutional pride on such occasions, when it comes to push of pike with another place, as on the Railways Bill on 4th November last, this House does not always have the courage to put its votes where its mouth is. Sometimes this House suffers from cold feet. I think that that is the result of underlying doubts about its legitimacy.
1564
It is of course difficult in this day and age to make any serious justification for the argument that heredity confers legitimacy. In fact, the best one can do is to quote Aristotle's principle that the lot is the most democratic form of selection. It brings people to this Chamber who would not otherwise be heard. I remember reading the maiden speech of the late Lord Milford, who was a card carrying member of the Communist Party. The task of congratulating him on his maiden speech fell to Lord Attlee, who said:
"It is an irony that the voice of the Communist Party can only be heard in this House. It is an advantage of the hereditary principle".
For all that we say about this issue, it is difficult to base legitimacy on heredity. I think that the proper answer to the question of legitimacy is to look at the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Those took from us some of our powers. The same Acts left us other powers. By leaving us those powers, they created a situation in which we enjoy our power by grant of another place —until, as was stated in 1911, a better system can be devised. We are on probation. We are an example of the potential redeeming power of probation.
We are therefore in a dilemma which is very like the dilemma which affected another place in the 17th century. It also had to give advice which, if it was to be good, had to be sometimes unwelcome to those from whom it derived its power. That is a very difficult tightrope to walk.
In another place in the 17th century some people used to worry about whether they were taking too much risk and unduly inflaming an irritated Executive. Others, perhaps more perceptive, expressed the fear that, if they were too modest in the exercise of their powers, those powers might moulder away from lack of use and that would be as great a danger as the other. Those reflections apply to us too. It is a tightrope on which one never walks with quite accurate balance. But although we have occasionally swayed violently from side to side, at the moment we are still on it and until another place chooses to take away our powers, we should be prepared to exercise them with confidence.
Such power is not only a matter of amending Bills. I once looked at the debate in this House on the Bill to postpone the general election which was due in 1940. A Bill to postpone a general election is not subject to the Parliament Acts, and quite right too. It was the unanimous opinion of this House in 1940 that, because it had the undoubted right to throw out that Bill, therefore it would not do so. That was a good decision and good exercise of a power which it is right that we should continue to have.
I listened with great interest and approval to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for a committee to scrutinise the compatibility of legislation with our international obligations. I once had occasion to ask a Minister if the Government had taken legal advice on whether a measure that they were introducing was contrary to European law. The Minister replied, "I would have to take advice on that point". I feel that he ought to have known the answer when he came before us. Such a committee would ensure that an expert opinion on such a question was available to us.

1565
I share the concern about regulations which we have heard from many quarters. But I should point out that the joint committee is responsible only for pronouncing on the values of the regulations. That is a competent legal job which is well left to the committee. Our job is to pronounce on the political propriety and convenience of those regulations. I shall not speak further today on how that matter should be addressed. But one thing that pleased me most about the changes in the Education Bill was the general agreement throughout the House—in which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee played a very important part—that Clause 20, the framework Bill clause, was the kind of thing which should not be put in front of this House.
In any changes, I should like to see attention paid to two points about composition which affect our function. One is the role of the Cross-Benchers, who are vital in this House not only for what they themselves say, valuable though it is, but also for their effect on the way the rest of us talk. I remember one occasion when Labour and Conservative Front Benches were swapping insults on their economic records—exactly like another place—and a Cross-Bencher asked, "What is this to us? Can you get back to the question?".
The other point is that in this Chamber there are people whose occupation is outside politics. I regret to say that there is a decline in the reputation of the whole political class. We cannot have a genuinely representative institution if there is no way for people to have a voice without belonging to a political party.
I end with just one more thought. According to my colleague, Adrian Lyttelton, in 1923 there was only one person who could have stopped Mussolini. That was the king. The king did not act because he did not believe that he had the power to do so. So when the war was over and there was a new settlement, the king disappeared along with Mussolini. I do not want us to make the same mistake.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. Perhaps I may eschew the normal courtesies of winding up a debate and not mention everybody who has spoken in the course of it. To do so would eat into the little time that I have and there are one or two matters that I should like to put to the House.
First, and it is not a common courtesy on my part, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for raising this subject tonight. It has been a useful and certainly a revealing debate. I am bound to say that there was a tinge of self-congratulation and self-satisfaction in a number of the speeches, which I did not think exactly equated with the reality of the situation. However, so be it.
Writing in 1989, Professor Griffiths and Michael Rile said about the House of Lords:
"The description of the House of Lords as it is today is one of a legislative chamber in flux: great changes have taken place in the last two decades, and the House is now so changing and enlarging its functions, largely as a result of external pressures, that it may appear fanciful to think that it can continue with the same procedures, powers and composition for much longer".
1566
It is against that background that we should approach the debate tonight, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, himself.
At the outset, let me say that the Labour Party is firmly not in favour of a unicameral legislature. We believe that the legislative process in this country—indeed political life in general—demands that there should be two Chambers of Parliament. The argument, as indeed is not unusual in these matters, is best set out in Bagehot. It is a good quote which I should like to share with the House. He wrote:
"With a perfect Lower House it is certain that an Upper House would be scarcely of any value. If we had an ideal House of Commons perfectly representing the nation, always moderate, never passionate, abounding in men of leisure, never omitting the slow and steady forms necessary for good consideration, it is certain that we should not need a higher chamber. The work would be done so well that we should not want anyone to look over or revise it. And whatever is unnecessary in government is pernicious. Human life makes so much complexity necessary that an artificial addition is sure to do harm: you cannot tell where the needless bit of machinery will catch and clog the hundred needful wheels; but the chances are conclusive that it will impede them somewhere, so nice are they and so delicate. But though beside an ideal House of Commons the Lords would be unnecessary, and therefore pernicious, besides the actual House a revising and leisured legislature is extremely useful, if not quite necessary".
I do not think that I can add anything to that argument, either the way in which it is expressed or the substance of it. The country needs two Chambers.
Therefore, we should go on to consider what this debate is about, which is the role of the Chamber and not necessarily its composition. The 1968 White Paper on the Lords identified a number of functions: six main ones, in addition to acting as the Supreme Court of Appeal. These were: first, the provision of a forum for full and free debate on matters of public interest; second, the revision of Public Bills brought up from the other place; third, the initiation of public legislation, including in particular those government Bills which are less controversial in party political terms than Private Members' Bills; fourth, the consideration of subordinate legislation, fifth, the scrutiny of the activities of the executive; and finally, the scrutiny of private legislation.
That description of our basic functions and roles remains as true today as it was in 1968. But over the past 20 to 25 years this House has developed its work in one further field which now deserves special mention: the work of our investigative Select Committees. I refer in particular to the European Communities Committee which reviews the legislative output of the European Union in a far more comprehensive way than does its counterpart in the other place. I refer also to the Select Committee on Science and Technology which took over the role of the former Commons committee of the same name in 1979. Both those Select Committees are extremely valuable and constitutionally innovative. They form part of the functions of this House if one is trying to judge it and assess its value.
If those are our functions, it is difficult to judge objectively precisely how effectively our functions are carried out. Governments are understandably reticent to tell people why they decide to change their minds. However, there is now some more objective data. The analysis of the 1988–89 Session recently carried out by

1567
the Study of Parliament Group revealed the way in which this House actually uses its time. It is perhaps a useful piece of data for the House to consider.
Just under two-thirds of our time was spent considering legislation, the great majority of it on government Bills. Almost one-third was spent on deliberation including Questions, short debates, Statements, Unstarred Questions, general debates and consideration of reports from Select Committees. The amount of time being spent on legislation has increased consistently over the past five Parliaments, as has the total number of hours that the House sits. The sheer volume of legislation has also increased. Earlier in the debate somebody asked for figures.
In the 1970s the average number of pages of legislation per year was 1,874; in the 1980s it was 2,540 and has certainly increased since then. In relation to amendments, according to Mr. Shell and Mr. Beamish who edited the Study of Parliament Group Report, 2,339 amendments were made to government Bills during the 1988–89 Session. That is a great deal. Over 99 per cent. of all amendments moved by the Government were successful, while amendments moved from other quarters of the House only achieved a success rate of just over 6 per cent. The report concluded thus:
"What is clear is that the vast majority of amendments made to Bills were the result of second (third, fourth and fifth?) thoughts by the Government itself as its legislation was squeezed through the so-called legislative sausage machine. The House is a place where errors and omissions can be corrected, where at least some details can be put right even if others are ignored. The House can act as a kind of legislative longstop. If it did not exist more care would have to be taken with the earlier stages of bills, or indeed more stages would be necessary in the Commons".
I find that argument highly persuasive and conclusive. But while the other roles referred to in the 1968 White Paper are still undoubtedly carried out by this House, their intellectual emphasis seems to be changing somewhat. There seems to be a tendency now to revert to what political scientists refer to as the "referendal" inspirations of Lord Salisbury in the middle of the nineteenth century. At a time of "elective dictatorship" it is sometimes argued that this House has an additional role—as emerged in some of the contributions this afternoon—namely, that we represent within the constitutional limits of our operation the feelings of the nation.
The Commons has the legitimacy of election. But it is now argued that the legitimacy of the Lords is drawn from its greater independence and from the wider variety of interests that are here represented. That may be so. It is the balance between those two that our constitution must make work. I do not want to stray into a discussion on composition but perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I merely give the statistics. As of 19th January 1994 membership of this House consisted of 774 hereditary Peers, 381 life Peers, 21 Law Lords and 26 bishops, making a total of 1,202. Excluding Lords without Writs of Summons and Peers on leave of absence, that meant that the total eligible to attend was 1,033 noble Lords.
The party breakdown is perhaps also slightly instructive. I merely give it for the convenience of the House. There are 384 Peers who take the Conservative Whip (that is 48.2 per cent.); 106 Peers take the Labour
1568
Whip (13.3 per cent.); 49 Peers take the Social and Liberal Democrat Whip (6.1 per cent.); and 23 Peers still call themselves Social Democrats and make up 2.9 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the, noble Lord's pardon. We are the Liberal Democrats and have been for a great many years.
Lord Richard: My Lords, labels change so often in some parts of the political arena. The point is still a valid one, whatever label the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to ascribe to it. The fact is that the Cross-Benchers amount to 196 Peers; that is, 24.6 per cent.
What is interesting about those figures is that if we add up the total of the Labour, the Liberal Democrats and what I assume is the rump of the SDP together, it amounts to 22.3 per cent. of the House. Cross-Benchers amount to 24.6 per cent. of the House. I am bound to say that it is indefensible to have a situation in which the Conservatives amount to 48.2 per cent. of your Lordships' House, the Cross-Benchers amount to 24.6 per cent. and the combined political oppositions amount to 22.3 per cent.
It is argued that it is in the independence of the Lords and its unreliability on party matters that the strength of this House lies. It needs to be indicated from time to time to Members in the Commons—I do not dissent from this—that they do not always have it entirely right and should think again. Elected the Commons may be, but it certainly is not infallible and I would not claim that it was. And that role is in some ways more important under a Conservative Government than under a Labour Government precisely because of the enormous disproportion in party strength. With a Conservative Government in power this House can only defeat the Government by a coalition of the opposition parties, a fair number of Cross-Benchers and some free spirits on the Conservative side. For a Labour Government the perspective is totally different. It is always vulnerable to the majority opposition—a majority based on the hereditary Peers. To beat a Labour Government 360 times, as this House did between 1974 and 1979, is not a sign of any vigorous coalition of independent interests which we have heard argued this afternoon as the justification for this place. It is a reflection of the voting strengths of the party opposite being used for party political purposes.
But if, therefore, the way in which the House operates is somewhat different depending on which party is in government, the role remains or should remain the same; namely, to provide a constitutional mechanism whereby the Commons can be asked to reconsider. In the end, of course, that House must prevail. We all accept that. But provided the expression of views here is genuinely an independent one, then it would be as well for a government to ponder. The recent experiences, for example, with the police Bill and the Education Bill, to say nothing of the Railways Bill, ought to be sufficient to make that clear to any government prepared to listen.
Let me say quite clearly that if we have no function other than to be a talking shop or, alternatively, a rubber stamp, then we may as well be abolished, have done

1569
with it and move to a unicameral legislature—something which I personally would greatly regret. For this debate I looked up some of the great reform speeches made by noble Lords of the past. I read the great speech made by the Marquess of Salisbury on the Irish Church Bill, when he said,
"If we do merely echo the House of Commons, the sooner we disappear the better. The object of the existence of a second House of Parliament is to supply the omissions and correct the defects of the first. But it is perfectly true that there may be occasions in which the decision of the House of Commons and the decision of the nation must be taken as practically the same".
I do not think our role has changed all that much since the days of the noble Marquess. However, I do have to say in conclusion that if this House is to continue to supply the omissions and to correct the defects of the elected Chamber, then in future it will have to do so on a more equitable and fair basis of composition than now exists.
5.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for choosing for debate this afternoon so fundamental a question as that of the constitutional role of your Lordships' House. It is right and valuable that periodically we should reflect upon our role and take stock both of its continuing validity and of our performance of it. It is helpful that there should have been contributions to this short debate from one as experienced as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and also from my noble friend Lady Miller, who confessed that she is a recent arrival in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government take the view—it seems to be a view shared throughout the House—that we should remain committed to the principle of a bicameral legislature. We further consider that this Upper House performs essential functions, as a Chamber of deliberation and revision—I shall come back to that word and precisely what it might mean—and as a guarantor of constitutional continuity. The Government consider that the powers and composition of your Lordships' House are broadly apt for the effective discharge of these functions. Accordingly, we have no present plans for far-reaching reform, although, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has recently written, that is not to say that the workings of the Lords may not be susceptible to improvement. That is demonstrated by the group that he has established under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon to look at the sittings of the House. I have no doubt that there will be a valuable contribution to come from that group.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that prime among our responsibilities must be our role in the examination and revision of Bills. As he indicated, the statistics bear that out. We spend well over 50 per cent. of our time in discussing legislation, most particularly in Committee and on Report.
Secondly, and also of great importance, is our function as a forum—and a particularly well informed
1570
and constructive forum—for the discussion of general questions of policy affecting our country. General debates account for something over 20 per cent. of the time of the House, but to this we must add the many hours of work which are performed by Select Committees, whose sometimes rather narrow scrutiny remit is frequently belied by the breadth of their inquiries. Like him, I also tender a compliment to those who work on the Select Committees for the undoubtedly valuable work that they undertake.
The second role to which I referred is, indeed, highly valued—and rightly so—both by many of your Lordships and by many outside the House, including other members of the Government. One of the great strengths of this House is that there are comparatively frequent opportunities not only for general debates but also for more specific ones which attract extremely expert and professional opinions based on a wealth of knowledge and experience. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, opinion in terms of general public opinion and also specialist opinion throughout the country is often beneficially affected by what is said within your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that there are many in this Chamber who have participated in valuable discussions beyond it. But what I come back to is the important part that the second Chamber has to play in the scrutiny of legislation. In so doing it makes a primary and tangible contribution within our existing constitutional arrangements.
I stress that the Government in no way underestimate the importance of the views of the House on the legislation that is placed before it. I readily accept that revising is not simply a matter of the House being restricted to correcting a few niggling errors made by the parliamentary draftsman. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter underlined, there is indeed a right of amendment. It is your Lordships' constitutional right to ask the other place to think again. It is central to the role of a second Chamber in our system that that should be so and it is one that all governments should take very seriously indeed. If, on occasion, Ministers appear to jib at the right when it is exerted, I hope your Lordships will recognise that even the skeeliest of skippers is inclined to resent nudges against the tiller.
The right of this House to scrutinise and amend is not in question. What we might do though, both to our benefit and to that of another place, is to examine how we might avoid unnecessary or repetitive consideration of those legislative matters brought before us. No doubt your Lordships have watched with particular interest the progress of the very complex Trade Marks Bill through this House. Perhaps I may say, to the tribute of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and all those who participated in the Committee stage off the Floor of the House, that the Bill was not only properly examined in Committee but when it returned to the Floor of the House for Report there was no undue reconsideration of the points. I suggest to your Lordships that we might have greater confidence in resorting to that model in the future.
Furthermore, in our paper Scotland in the Union, it was stated that the Government have acknowledged that it would be desirable to find ways of significantly increasing the throughput of law reform Bills proposed

1571
by the Law Commissions if this can be done without prejudice to the main programme. I consider that to be a valuable function for your Lordships' House—and I speak not only as a Scottish Minister and a Scottish lawyer but with an eye to law reform on both sides of the Border. While I was interested in the first thought of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in looking to the role of your Lordships' House, it would seem to me that we could take a first thought on a number of matters of importance in law reform for both of our jurisdictions. In so doing we might bring about a further and broader constitutional achievement—a greater cementing of the nations of the United Kingdom by making sure that legislation that properly ought to go through is not left on the stocks without implementation.
Any consideration of our functions inevitably invites reflection on the suitability of those persons accorded what is the privilege and responsibility of their undertaking. It has been said during the course of the debate that this House is wide in its composition. I am proud to be a Member of your Lordships' House, but I nevertheless believe that we are here with a certain degree of humility and a recognition of the responsibilities of the elected nature of another place. Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I have some knowledge of South Africa. As we all watch with great hope, but not without trepidation, its moves towards democracy, I do not believe that it would be right to imagine that it is only in an unelected Chamber that all which is to be achieved is to be achieved.
I believe that it can be correctly claimed that our membership brings to bear in debate, both of legislation and otherwise, an invaluable range of knowledge and experience which is often, as has been said, both different from and arguably wider than that found in another place. I may not entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, that the views expressed as regards a recent Bill were the right ones; but nevertheless there was a wide range of experience brought to bear on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.
We also have the benefit of views which are not necessarily committed to the line of any particular party. I am here thinking of the role of the Cross-Benchers, who offer us both authority and expertise from an independent viewpoint. I readily acknowledge that that is not something that ought to be underestimated.
The powers of your Lordships' House are well enough known. I noted in a recent article that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described a reconsideration of them as the equivalent of opening up a can of worms. I would have been interested to hear whether he had any further thoughts on that. What is important is that we should have regard to the voluntary limitations on the powers of your Lordships' House. The Salisbury Doctrine has been considered on a number of occasions recently. There appears, and there should continue, to be an appreciation that it should remain in place. I do not accept, as the Opposition Front Bench might like me to, that after the next general election there will be a reversal of positions in your Lordships' House. But wherever anyone sits in your Lordships' House, I would have thought that the desirability for the continuation of such a doctrine was important.
1572
I too have some anxiety that as we consider our role and function we should not—however vigorously we debate matters and however carefully we scrutinise the legislation going through your Lordships' House—usurp to ourselves, as it were, the role of being the voting articulation of the opinion polls in the country at any particular time. We do not have in this country a system of government based on single-issue politics. Governments are entitled to be judged on their records as a whole. If elections are to continue to be based on discussions of policy, they are entitled to set a whole package of measures before the electorate. For that reason I similarly take the view that we ought to be careful about taking up that particular position.
If there is one issue which seems to have come to the fore more prominently than in previous years it is the anxieties in your Lordships' House as regards delegated legislation. I know that a number of your Lordships have considerable concerns about such legislation. The Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling about the growth in the amount and the scope of such delegated legislation. It is only right that your Lordships should be vigilant. I believe that the knowledge of your Lordships in the rigorous scrutiny of such delegated legislation is a significant factor in the consideration of such matters by government. As has been indicated, the establishment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which has built up, and rightly so, a strong reputation with your Lordships, has reinforced the role which your Lordships have in scrutinising the powers which government propose to take in the Bills in which delegated legislation appears.
Allied to that, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, introduced an interesting line as regards our international obligations in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. As I understood his proposal, it was either that the existing Select Committee should expand its remit to take on that responsibility or, alternatively, as I believe his noble friend indicated, there might be a separate Select Committee established. I say to him that if such a proposal is to be put forward, I am sure he will appreciate that it is not for government to consider. Initially it is a matter for the Liaison Committee. The noble Lord may wish to put forward a memorandum to the committee in due course setting out his views.
I say to him that it should be no secret that before any department of government now puts forward legislation, be it primary or secondary, it is certainly under an obligation within government to seek to assess whether there are any implications arising out of those international obligations. From time to time there are certainly circumstances where there are breaches of that convention. But they are seldom deliberate ones. They have occurred more frequently as a consequence of the developing jurisprudence of the court rather than of any other particular approach by government.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has just said. Does he agree with me that it is slightly odd that the Government and the judges take the convention seriously but that Parliament has no machinery at all ?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have indicated to the noble Lord that the Government take it seriously, and the courts should too. If this House is to take the matter forward, I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that it is not for me in any sense to attempt to direct or even to influence any attempt to do so. I suspect that that might be counter-productive. As I have suggested to the noble Lord, he might like to make his own approaches to see how the matter could be taken forward.
However uneasy some of your Lordships may be about the conventions as regards not voting against Motions to approve or annul delegated legislation, I counsel you that the existing arrangement ought to be maintained. If delegated legislation is voted down it is not to ask another place to reconsider its decision but to ensure that that delegated legislation cannot come into effect at all.
I had hoped to have time, as I considered matters, to look to what might be proposals for change to the composition of your Lordships' House. Some of your Lordships will know more directly than I can recall the curious and celebrated alliance between Mr. Enoch Powell and Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn when it came to considering—
Noble Lords: Michael Foot!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I beg your Lordships' pardon. That was an equally celebrated alliance.
From the consideration there has been recently of what changes there might be to the composition of your Lordships' House, exactly the same picture emerges. Despite what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had to say about it, no one has come forward with any proposal for the composition of your Lordships' House which will secure anything like a majority in any part of this House, in the country or in the House of Commons.
If one looks at any particular model, each has within it serious flaws which are probably the safeguard of the present composition of your Lordships' House. I cannot believe that there is anyone here—when so much attachment is given to the influence and independent role of your Lordships' House—who would consider that an opportunity for the Prime Minister of the day to have the sole right of nomination for the time being would he at all attractive. I have no doubt that Members of another place would be extremely concerned if there were to be a complete arrangement for elections to your Lordships' House. The idea that there should be Class A or Class B Members of your Lordships' House would equally seem to be a proposal which would be highly undesirable.
I hope that in taking something of a view of the various powers of and roles that your Lordships' House performs, I have been able to explain to your Lordships why the Government consider that the present composition and powers of this House are broadly right. The evidence is that membership comprising hereditary, ex officio and life Peers provides a House that is capable of discharging most effectively its vital roles—of deliberation, revision and continuity—in our constitutional arrangements.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord really justify a situation in which roughly two-thirds of the Members of your Lordships' House are Peers by succession?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I really do want to conclude, but I have indicated that whatever the particular criticisms of any individual Member of your Lordships' House or elsewhere about the arrangements for the composition of the House, what is singularly lacking is any proposal that would command anything like a majority view elsewhere. That is undoubtedly the position. I notice that the noble Earl indicated his disapproval of that arrangement, but, if I may say so, his speech was singularly lacking in offering any alternative, spelt out in detail, which would attract widespread support.
A number of distinguished constitutionalists have been quoted during the debate. I regret that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is not in his place because I should like to refer to the book that he published just two years ago. His chapter on the House of Lords concludes:
"Human institutions are of two classes, the traditional and the contrived. The contrived must be judged by reason. The test of the traditional type is how well it works in practice, and the quality and value of what it produces. By this test, the House of Lords should survive".
5.32 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am truly grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It would be invidious to single out individual speeches, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that I found the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition exceptionally informative.
I wish to make just one or two points in relation to matters that arose late in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who so agreeably replied to the debate, said that your Lordships should continue the convention of not voting against statutory instruments. I very much hope that you will reconsider that. It is a very weak convention. It is weak in the sense that it does not make any constitutional sense and weak also because it has been breached—notably in connection with the order relating to Rhodesian sanctions.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I take him up on another point, which is his apparent enamour of Public Bill Committees. The great danger is that they might be taken as a means for the Government to load yet more legislation on Parliament. A consistent theme of this debate has been that we have far too much legislation.
I turn now to the suggestion that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the European Convention on Human Rights should be repatriated. I entirely agree—not only are we signatories, but British lawyers played a large part in framing the convention. If we cannot go so far, I think the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, merits serious consideration. At least the Scrutiny Committee could examine subordinate legislation as to its compatibility

1575
with the European convention. That would be within its general scope—and it would not be going as far as its Australian counterpart.
My last point is one that I wished to make in opening the debate but omitted. I am very glad that a number of your Lordships referred to the sad news of the death of Mr. Cryer in an accident. He was a highly admired chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and, as your Lordships' House is the principal parliamentary organ of scrutiny of such instruments, we are all greatly in his debt. I know that your Lordships would wish to be associated with expressions of sympathy for his family and colleagues.
As for the rest, there is only a Motion for Papers outstanding and, in case there should be a pile of papers in the way of the next debate of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, on behalf of the Labour Party, I should like to express to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to other noble Lords who have mentioned this tonight, our thanks for what they have said about Bob Cryer. He was a remarkable man and those of us who knew him respected him greatly. We are extremely grateful for what has been said.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher and a colleague of the late Bob Cryer from 1974 to 1979 and subsequently from 1983 onwards, I should like to add my condolences to his family and to express my long-standing high regard for him as a parliamentarian in the other House. Despite our many differences on European and other issues, his stance on such matters only deepened the admiration of all of us and our high regard for him.
Motion, for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disabled Employment Quota System
5.37 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyrose to call attention to the future of the quota system for employment of disabled people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In introducing the Motion, I remind your Lordships that the quota system was introduced by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1944. This year sees the 50th anniversary of its Royal Assent. In a few weeks' time there is also to be another 50th anniversary—of the Normandy Landings. I shall myself be in Normandy for that anniversary at the beginning of June.
There is a connection between those two contemporary events. The 1944 Act was intended at that time to make provision primarily for war-disabled people, including of course civilians injured by bombing. A very large majority of those in the Armed Forces who had been disabled were in their 20s with many years of working age before them. I remind your Lordships also that the quota scheme required employers of 20 or more
1576
people to maintain a percentage of registered disabled employees. The percentage was to be prescribed by a Minister, and it has for many years been 3 per cent.
In recent years, the Act has not been effective in the way intended. The reason has been the failure of the registration system. My principal argument today is that if the quota scheme is to be continued, a very special effort must be made to reform the way in which registration is carried out. Hitherto, registration has been supervised centrally: first, by the Ministry of Labour, as it was, then by the Department of Employment, and for a time by the Manpower Services Commission.
There are registers in each appropriate area of work in the country. What has gone wrong during the past 30 years is that over a large part of the country less than 3 per cent. of the working population has been registered as disabled for the purposes of the Act. It has been virtually impossible for all the organisations employing more than 20 people to achieve that 3 per cent. when, for example, the percentage of persons on the register in their area is 2 per cent. or less. Where firms have achieved the 3 per cent. or more, it has been because the smaller employers in their area were employing few, if any, disabled people. That produced a situation of notional achievement but was entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act.
One does not have to be a brilliant mathematician to see that the 3 per cent. quota system cannot he enforced in areas where the register contains considerably less than 3 per cent. of the local working population. The latest figure that I have (for the year 1993) shows that for the whole of the UK the register contains only 1.3 per cent. of the working population. That is what it has stood at in recent months. That disrupting discrepancy between the percentage of registered disabled and the quota makes it essential that the scheme be overhauled. I shall return to the registration system later.
I shall now return to 1944 and examine more closely the provisions in the Act. I suggest that I may be a suitable person to do so as I was one of those for whom the Act was intended. A few months after its. Royal Assent, I was wounded, aged 23. I emerged from hospital more than a year later, aged 25, and still unable to walk. In fact I had made an unexpectedly good recovery thanks to the surgery of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and I was partially disabled only. The quota was not needed in my case because I took the Foreign Office examination on leaving hospital and was successful.
Your Lordships might be amused by the next hurdle, which was the Foreign Office medical examination. Still not walking, but 100 per cent. fit in other physicians' requirements, I was passed by the medical board, the chairman making the memorable remark, "As a diplomat of course, you will never need to walk or stand". That may have been true in those days, but of course things changed later. That personal reminiscence is a reminder of the climate and attitudes when the 1944 Act was coming into effect. The need was obvious and accepted: to assist young war disabled to start and settle into occupations.
Section 10 deals with quotas. There was to be a standard percentage, the figure for which was to be

1577
prescribed and specified by order, after wide consultation. That has been 3 per cent., I think, from the beginning. But the figure was not in the Act; it is prescribed.
Also in Section 10 there were to be special percentages which the Minister could specify for particular sectors of employment. The object was clearly to take into account the suitability and distinctive characteristics of various parts of trade and industry. So far as I know, those special percentages have never been put into operation. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will tell us today whether they have ever been used.
Section 11 provides for exemptions. The Minister can grant permits allowing employers to be below the quota in certain circumstances. That provision has been used, though it has little meaning or effect in areas where the number of registered disabled is well below the 3 per cent. quota figure in any case.
The register under the Act is a voluntary one. No one is compelled to put down their names. It is separate from other registers such as those for the disabled held by local authorities. Under the Act those to be recorded in the registers are defined as:
"substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment".
Why are so many who ought to be on the register not there? Is it because they are not aware of the register? Is it because they do not think that it will help them? I understand that three or four years ago the Department of Employment commissioned a survey and that the report stated that about half of those who could qualify for the register had never heard of it, and some of those who had heard about it thought that it would not help them in any case. It is clear that a great deal needs to be done if the quota system is to continue. My information is that the Government have no plan at present to discontinue or replace it and that they are keeping it under review. That is not a new expression for most of us. I should be grateful if my noble friend would tell us more about that.
Most organisations representing disabled people are in favour of keeping the quota scheme. They criticise its imperfections but prefer it to nothing. For years the 3 per cent. figure has been merely a target rather than a goal which can everywhere be achieved for the reasons that I have given. Most of the organisations representing disabled people would prefer to keep it rather than to change to something else which might be worse.
Some employers' organisations, on the other hand, favour radical change or repeal. In particular, the organisation Employers' Forum on Disability would replace the quota scheme by other measures, including a strict code of practice. That is supported by the argument, which all of us as parliamentarians should respect, that laws in Acts of Parliament fall into disrepute when it is, in practice, mathematically impossible to observe them or to enforce them.
The MSC made similar recommendations in the early 1980s. During the International Year for Disabled People (1981) I was appointed to a role in this country during that year and the MSC was asked to review the quota scheme. It recommended that it be ended and
1578
replaced by a code of practice. I understand entirely the reluctance of governments to follow that advice when the disabled organisations are so anxious about the complete disappearance of the scheme.
My view of the quota scheme is that, although it is creaking and much discredited, it should not be dropped until there is clearly something better to replace it. In that connection, I acknowledge the additional schemes which exist. My subject today is the 1944 Act quota scheme so I shall make a passing reference only, to complete the scene, to sheltered employment. Pre-eminent in that field is the organisation Remploy, assisted by government, with factories in different parts of the UK producing goods for commercial purposes. Only last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced new measures to finance sheltered employment, in addition to Remploy, for severely disabled people. I accept that there are schemes in addition to the 1944 quota scheme.
It is sometimes stated that there are some 6 million disabled people in the UK—more than one tenth of the population. That figure has no application whatever to my subject today. First of all, some of them are people with minor disabilities, though on that a lot could be said. Someone who loses a finger, for example, is not severely disabled, but if he happens to be a pianist by profession then of course it is a calamity.
The main point is that of that figure of 6 million about three-quarters are over working age. They are past retirement. Their disabilities are mostly those which must be expected to attend advancing years. Their lives and their problems are of concern to the nation, which can and should respond in various ways, including efficient systems of community care.
Today we are discussing in the Motion disabled people of working age. That of course is a much smaller number than the 6 million. Within it, I suggest it is people in their 20s and 30s in particular to whom we should be giving special attention. Once they are started in a trade or occupation, it is easier for them to stay on in it. Yet many of them are not even on these registers.
Returning to the quota scheme, in the early 1980s a proposal was considered that fines or penalties be imposed for those organisations which were not meeting the quota and had not received the exemptions from the Minister. Clearly, this would not be fair or acceptable while the registration system was so ineffective and unable to produce the numbers of disabled employees required for a 3 per cent. quota.
Also, there was a feeling among some of the disabled organisations that fines would misinterpret the worth of disabled people and that they should not be regarded as an unwanted burden which could be avoided by the option of a financial payment. I was made very much aware of this during the international year because I was told it directly by disabled people and their organisations. Disabled employees, while some may need technical aids, can give as valuable a contribution as able-bodied workers and should not be treated as though they were in a second category.
However, Germany and France are operating quota schemes, combined with financial penalties in Germany and a levy system in France. The money collected from

1579
them goes to funds for disabled purposes. It is clear to those of us who have looked into it that some firms simply pay the fines in those countries and do not seriously attempt to meet the quota. They just decide to pay the money and not to try to employ the disabled people. Nonetheless, the schemes in those two countries are working.
I ask: how do France and Germany make their registration arrangements effective? Will the Government study their systems of registration? I hope that the Minister can tell us something about that. Unless our system is greatly improved, we cannot hope to emulate their results.
The subject would not be complete without mention of recent developments in the United States. Their legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, does not include a quota scheme. Its aim is to prevent discrimination. In the part on employment, employers of 25 people or more must accept any disabled applicant for a job, subject to "reasonable accommodations" being made. The figure of 25 is due to come down to 15 after four years.
The key words in this are "reasonable accommodations". They normally mean in the United States special equipment or adaptations. The word "reasonable" has come to have the effect of excusing employers who would suffer hardship and where an accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense. The United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has the role of mediation to obtain settlement of these factors in individual cases. It is hoped in the United States that most cases will be settled reasonably—that is the word which is used a great deal —without going to civil courts, which is the next stage in the process.
It remains to be seen at this early stage how this new American legislation will work in practice. The words that I have quoted, "to make reasonable accommodations", are also being used on this side of the Atlantic —as I am sure my noble friend knows—in a Private Member's Bill which received its Second Reading in another place on 11th March. The words have again been used, I think in the hope that it would lead to settlements without having a lot of litigation in the courts.
I hope that my noble friend will give us the Government's latest views on the quota system. While the scheme continues, it could be transformed—favourably, I believe —by making the registration procedure work. Surely this could be done. What are the difficulties? If there are serious difficulties, why not start a completely new register under the Act, accompanied by intense publicity? I am sure that the media would help, and it would encourage everyone who would qualify and who was looking for work to be listed in the registers.
In due course, I accept that the quota scheme may be overtaken by better arrangements, and there is not enough time in this debate to consider possible alternatives. I suggest that the American experience with the new Act should be studied closely. If satisfactory results are being attained there by discussion and without the courts being cluttered up
1580
with cases, we certainly ought to look in that direction too. In the meantime, I urge the Government not just to review or "keep under review"—the traditional words —the registration arrangements but to subject them to a thorough overhaul. I beg to move for Papers.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Disabled people and their employment is probably a subject to which we do not pay enough attention, especially when we consider the amount of time which, on the numerous education Bills which have travelled through the House, we have spent discussing those with special educational needs. I have often felt that in this field we are very good at training people who are in school or education generally to achieve their full potential, or at least at equipping them better to do so. The present Government have been overseeing most of the changes which started with the 1981 Act. However, we are rather in the habit of ignoring the problem of what happens to these people for the majority of their lives when they are actually in the workplace.
The 1944 Act is 50 years old and, as the noble Lord rightly said, much of the problem is that, for a variety of reasons, there is tremendous resistance to it from people who are disabled. The first is possibly the perception; the idea of disability is increasingly being fought against by those groups who have what are referred to as disabilities. Many people say, "We are not disabled, we are differently able". I appreciate that political correctness looms large in that statement and many noble Lords will have a great fear of what counts as political correctness. It is disabled people's idea of themselves that we are dealing with here. A person who, for example, has lost the use of a limb or his or her hearing is not necessarily disabled in every sphere of activity. Clause 1(1) of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 states that:
"'disabled person' means a person who, on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity, is substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment".
I am dyslexic, therefore I have a congenital deformity under the Act. I am a registered disabled person. I feel that that description of myself is not the one that is normally considered when people see me. Indeed, I remember that, when registering for disability, I did it more or less as a matter of principle; I came in, sat down and registered as a disabled person with my rugby kit on the desk beside me as I signed the forms. There is a perception of disability which does not sit well with many people. It also does not sit well with employers.
When employers are dealing with disability—and we are often talking about mental illness or learning difficulties in this context—they do not know what to expect. If someone has a mental illness, it does not mean that he is an axe murderer. However when mental illness is spoken of, that is the perception which is conveyed. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, stated, perhaps the first step that the Government should take when considering either changing the law or trying to ensure better enforcement of the Act is to try to educate

1581
all those involved in this sphere, both those whom the Act is designed to help and the employers. Unless it is understood what is meant by "disability", there will be no participation in any scheme because those with handicaps may feel that their dignity is being attacked and employers may feel that they are taking on an unacceptable burden.
If that is taken as a starting point for future legislation, we may well solve many of the problems which currently exist in this area. It will also lay a firm foundation for any new action which is proposed.
The current system is failing and we must ask whether it is still an appropriate system to use, even if it is changed. Work patterns have changed fundamentally since its introduction. People are no longer expected to work standing at production lines for long periods of time. For example, a person who has a damaged limb may not be required to stand to work when to do so would put him at a disadvantage. Many people now work at a keyboard or a desk. We no longer require repetitive manual skills as part of the normal process. For example, the use of a pen is no longer absolutely essential for most office jobs. Our employment situation is changing fundamentally. Therefore, I suggest that any legislation in this field should place emphasis on assisting people with disabilities to gain access to job situations.
That means that a form of support structure must be framed to give a degree of assistance to people with disabilities. That may be a very narrow form of support. During our discussions on recent Education Bills and the problems of disabled people and those with special learning difficulties, we have advocated improving access facilities. In many cases that entails merely the provision of ramps on staircases. It is that simple. It may involve merely the provision of a chair, which, after all, is a fairly mundane item in many people's private homes. Once such an item is placed inside a building, it is there for all time and for everybody to use. After a small initial capital outlay, the item is available for permanent use. For example, if a chairlift is provided for a disabled person, that may also enable a person who has broken an ankle in a skiing accident to go into work. Therefore, it does not help only one person. If that employee leaves, the item is still available for use by other employees.
We must start to allow that help to be given. The Government have made considerable advances in the educational field but they have not really tackled the issue of giving the same degree of support to those people with difficulties once they have obtained employment. I hope that the Government will not say that that is too much of an intrusion in the workplace. We must bear such matters in mind.
I know that it is rather feeble to say this as only the second speaker in the debate, but many of the points that I had been going to raise have been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, I can safely say that we must try to foster a degree of cohesion. Also we must try to include in the present structure those disabilities which were not originally envisaged. Finally, we must try to change the attitudes
1582
of all those who are involved, because, unless we deal with attitude, which is the primary drawback of the present system, no new system will be successful. It cannot be successful because there will not even be sufficient understanding of the questions that are being asked.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, it would be impertinent of me, although very sincere, to congratulate my noble friend and to thank him for the assiduity with which he brings a number of extremely important matters to our attention. But I must express my particular admiration for the work that he does on behalf of handicapped people. I have heard him speak in support of them on a number of occasions.
I am glad that my noble friend took us back 50 years because it was in 1944 that I was honoured to be asked to join the national advisory committee on the employment of the disabled in the then Ministry of Labour at the end of a war which, I think my noble friend would agree, had wrought an enormous change in society's attitude towards handicaps and disability.
It was a hunger for labour in the 1940s that resulted in an extremely imaginative programme of training and industrial rehabilitation. The wartime government enabled hundreds of people to take part in productive employment, many for the first time. The names that occur to me, and probably to most of us, are Ernest Bevin, George Tomlinson and my own mentor at the then Ministry of Labour, Sir Archie Gordon, who later made a great name for himself among the trade unions in the United States.
Through the national advisory council, I was connected closely with two of the innovations: one was the quota, of which my noble friend spoke; the other was the scheme of designated employment, which reserved specific jobs—I remember lift operators and car park attendants—for the disabled. In the 1940s I gave complete support to those proposals but I do not believe that they occupy the same position of importance some 50 years later.
It is always stupid to make generalisations about anything and I hope that I should not be sufficiently arrogant to express a view on behalf of those with handicaps. However, my own experience and my conversations with others convince me that the one wish of a large number of disabled people is to be, as far as possible, like other people. They do not wish to be considered different, and they do not wish to be segregated. I cannot see how one avoids the impression that those employed as part of a quota because they are on a disabled register are somehow different from other people. Even more, the reservation of certain jobs suggests that those occupying them are adequate for those jobs but not adequate for jobs which are more skilled and demanding. Therefore, some time ago, I began to feel that a consequence of the designated jobs scheme was to lower the objectives which most handicapped people wished to keep before them.
However, I believe that one beneficial result of the quota scheme, and possibly the other scheme too, has been to open a little wider the eyes of many employers

1583
both to the abilities to work of those with disabilities and also to their determination to excel. It is clear to me that in a number of cases—I do not know how many—the output of disabled workers is as great or greater than that of the able bodied. When it is harder to move around, one's mind tends to concentrate more intently on the work in hand. Therefore, many disabled workers are very reliable.
I have followed with interest—as my noble friend said he had done also—the progress of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in another place. I admit that in the past I have been very critical of it, both privately and in public. That is because, by its very nature, it sets apart disabled workers from the able bodied in employment. I know that many of the disabled, even those with very severe handicaps, remain certain that they can win jobs on the strength of the abilities which remain available to them. Their selection against able-bodied competition is a powerful builder of self-esteem.
But—and it is a very big but—I have to admit that, for a very large number of disabled people, the chances of gainful employment are far fewer than those for the able bodied. Unfortunately, that is a fact which stares us all directly in the face. The reasons for it are very evident. Almost by definition, many jobs are just not open to disabled people. No one in their senses would send me to climb up a ladder. I might reach the top in the end, but it would take a very long time.
Similarly, there are undoubtedly problems for employers in taking on disabled workers. The problems are fewer than they think, but they are there. Ideally, I should like to see handicapped people finding jobs not because they are disabled but because, in many respects and in a whole variety of jobs, they are as competent or more so than their able-bodied competitors. But that is the ideal which has been in my mind and in the minds of others for a very long time, at the end of which we must now face the fact that thousands of handicapped people who long to work still find the way barred.
One day—perhaps during this Session—the civil rights Bill will be accepted by Parliament. If so, I hope that its supporters will not assume that it holds the key to immediate entry to the promised land of equal opportunity. I do not believe that it does; nor do I believe that penalties or levies on employers who do not employ such workers holds the key. In the past, the Government have pinned faith on other methods to increase opportunities. I hope that their determination to press ahead with persuasion and education will not be dimmed in any way if and when the civil rights legislation receives Royal Assent.
Ministers rightly argue that we are now far more conscious of the needs of those who have been injured. For example, access to buildings and to transport is much easier. Travel by rail and air and parking in busy cities, if not simple, are a great deal less difficult than before. Moreover, many employers have enlightened ideas. However, there are still a large number of employers—and I am sorry to say that some Government departments do not set an entirely splendid example—who either are not enlightened; who find
1584
people with disabilities a bit frightening; or who quail before the necessary changes that they would have to make.
Whatever the fate of the Bill in another place, I beg the Government to press on with their more positive approach and to be prepared to offer a great deal more help to employers with the cost of necessary adaptation. When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will be able to give encouragement not only to me and to other noble Lords but also to hundreds of disabled people who would like to see it made easier for employers to do what my noble friend himself would, I feel, dearly like to see carried out over the whole country.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like, first, to join the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on having given us the opportunity to return to the question of what can be done to improve the employment opportunities of disabled people. The noble Lord, himself severely disabled by war wounds, has a long and distinguished record of seeking to introduce legislation for the benefit of others who are disabled. It is typical of that concern that he has chosen this subject for today's debate.
When we discussed the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, two years ago, I recalled from my own industrial experience that even as soon as 10 years after the end of World War II the 3 per cent. quota system was not working. Now, 40 years later, I believe that there is general agreement that the 1944 Act has fallen into at least a degree of disrepute because there are not enough people to fill the quota and the law has proved impossible in practice to enforce. That being so, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will forgive me if I say no more about the quota as such, but follow the line of thought which was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness.
In debating the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, there were those of us, on the one hand, who felt that the remedy lay in introducing general legislation which would enable disabled people denied employment by unreasonable recruitment practices to gain redress. But, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, speaking for the Government, said that he preferred education, co-operation and specific legislation as a means to the end that we all favoured; namely, the elimination of unjustified discrimination.
I believe that we should give the Government credit for all that they have done since then to encourage better practice through the voluntary approach. They have continued to try to help unemployed people who are disabled to find work by relaxing the criteria under which such people can gain entry to various employment and training schemes. Recently, the Government also decided that firms should no longer be required to pay half the additional cost of employing disabled people under the access to work scheme. Welcome, too, is the way in which over 50 leading employers have committed themselves to good practice

1585
in recruiting and giving continued employment to disabled people. But, as we all know, there are still far too many examples of discrimination.
In my view, the educational practice would have a better chance of success if it were to be underpinned by legislation of a practical kind. After all, that is the rationale of the Disabled Act which has now come into force in the United States. I readily accept that legislation will not of itself eliminate ignorance and prejudice, but I believe that it could produce some modification in behaviour that might subsequently lead to changes in attitude. As my noble friend Lord Addington said, such changes in attitude are a fundamental need.
What struck me most since we last debated the subject is the way in which more and more prominent people and reputable organisations have reached the conclusion that a piecemeal approach to a problem that allows only for targeted legislation is insufficient. They have decided that voluntarism has had its chance and that in circumstances where official figures show that, compared with others, disabled people are three times more likely to be out of work, are unemployed for longer and are paid on average 25 per cent. less, it is time for the law to intervene.
Notable among these converts is the Institute of Personnel Management whose members operate in the front line of industry. As recently as three years ago the institute continued to favour self-regulation in this matter. But in the written evidence it has now presented to the House of Commons Employment Committee it has called for new anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people along the lines already established in the case of sex and race.
Most significant is the way in which the balance of opinion among Members of another place of all parties has swung in the same direction. Where two years ago the same Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, introduced in your Lordships' House was in the other place talked out at Second Reading, this year the Prime Minister himself said of the same Bill, only three days before it was reintroduced,
"I hope that the Bill will go into Committee for detailed examination of its provisions".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/94; col. 147.]
The Minister of State took the same line when the Bill was debated on 11th March and it duly received its Second Reading without dissent. It is noteworthy, too, that the Law Society has said of the Bill's employment provisions, with which it was principally concerned, that they go in,
"precisely the direction in which the law should move".
I hope that this positive attitude will be reflected in what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has to say when he replies to the debate. At the very least, now that the Bill's provisions are being given detailed, consideration in Committee in another place, I trust he will confirm that the Government will judge them in an open-minded way.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing a debate this evening on this important subject and for the well informed and detailed way in which he introduced it. Those of us lucky enough not to suffer from a disability and to be regarded as able-bodied do not always realise the extent to which our society is unfriendly to those perceived as disabled persons.
It was not until my husband became disabled as a result of arthritis that I realised how difficult life often is for those with a mobility problem. There are so many places that are out of bounds to them and so many public places built by architects with a liking for long staircases and which have lifts tucked away in inaccessible places. When provisions are made for disabled people they have to be sought out by the disabled persons themselves. Our railway stations and underground systems illustrate the problems exactly. However, my husband is retired: the problems are so much greater for the younger disabled person who needs employment not only to earn a livelihood and gain some semblance of independence but also to preserve self-respect and a feeling of belonging to the community.
Moreover, the number of people involved is not so very small. A survey carried out for the Department of Employment in 1989, which used a fairly narrow definition of disability by reference to employability, estimated that 22 per cent. of adults of working age had a health problem or disability. The survey measured the adult disabled population at 7.3 million persons. The research further calculated that 8 per cent. suffered an occupational handicap as a result of their health status. Further sub-analysis of the data led the researchers to conclude that disabled persons who are occupationally handicapped and economically active—that is, in work or seeking work—represented 4 per cent. of the population.
We are therefore talking about a sizeable minority group. Furthermore, only a minority of disabled adults are in work and this compares unfavourably with the general population. When in employment, disabled employees are likely to be under-represented in the professional and managerial occupations and non-manual jobs, but disproportionately represented in semi-skilled and unskilled employment. Not surprisingly, disability also has an adverse effect upon earned income. Full-time disabled men, according to this survey, earn only 81 per cent. of average gross weekly earnings, and 84 per cent. of average hourly pay for the general population. The comparable figures for female disabled workers are 88 per cent. and 91 per cent. Research undertaken by the Spastics Society appears to indicate that a non-disabled applicant for a job was 1.6 times more likely to receive a positive response than an application from a disabled person. The society carried out experiments with paired applications based on standard letters from individuals with the same or similar qualifications, one application being from a registered disabled person and another from one who was not. Analysis of the results showed that 97 per cent.

1587
of the applications from able-bodied people received a positive response, as compared with only 59 per cent. of applications received from persons who identified themselves as disabled when making their applications.
Further studies reveal that the experience of disability and employment is an extremely depressing one. There are real problems to be overcome by disabled workers. First, there are often physical and vocational obstacles to be overcome with regard to education and training. According to the study to which I have referred, disabled workers are nearly twice as likely as non-disabled workers to lack formal educational qualifications and to have had skill training. Then there are the difficulties often presented by architectural designs and transportation systems. How very few architects seem to give the plight of disabled individuals a thought when designing public buildings, let alone offices and factories. Then disabled people often encounter resistance from employers to hiring persons with disabilities. And this resistance persists despite evidence collected by the Department of Employment which indicates that disabled workers are so glad to get jobs that they are ultra-reliable!
Disabled workers often experience self-doubt as a result of their previous experiences of rejection because of their disability. Finally, they must often overcome the tests created by inflexible medical examinations which are used by many employers often without questioning their appropriateness or their validity. In other words, there is a framework of discrimination built into the way in which our labour market operates.
What have we done to try to create working opportunities for disabled people? As we have discussed tonight, we have the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. That Act is 50 years old. I agree with much of what has been said on that matter and I do not wish to repeat many of the detailed explanations and descriptions which have already been given by other noble Lords. The main plank of the Act is the statutory disabled quota scheme under which employers with 20 or more employees are obliged to have a 3 per cent. quota of disabled persons. It is also an offence to dismiss a. registered disabled person without reasonable cause if, as a result of that dismissal, the employer would be failing to comply with the quota. However, as we know, there is provision for employers to escape responsibilities under the Act because it allows for exemptions.
As all of us have commented this evening, the scheme does not appear to have been successful in preventing discrimination against disabled persons. It has failed to guarantee employment opportunities for them. It does not deal with employment issues generally, as do the anti-discrimination laws on race and gender, for there is a failure to deal with training, promotion and remuneration. Why has it failed to deliver, as clearly it was introduced with the best of intentions? First, many employers do not appear to be aware of the quota scheme or its requirements. The Department of Employment estimates that only about 24 per cent. of employers currently meet their quota target.
1588
Secondly, there has been a widespread reluctance among disabled persons to register; a point referred to by a number of noble Lords. It is apparently difficult to ascertain why this should be so, but it is possible that many disabled persons do not want to be separately identified in this way as it might hamper social acceptance and their general integration into the workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already given some examples from his own experience of the feelings of persons in the category to which I have referred. Many disabled people may also have doubts about the benefits of being so identified.
Therefore, on the one hand there is a lack of awareness on the part of employers, plus a lack of enforcement by the authorities, and on the other hand there is the reluctance of any who might benefit to identify themselves and take advantage of the scheme.
There have been no prosecutions since the 1970s and it is more than possible that the authorities believe that the reluctance of disabled workers to register makes the matter of enforcement academic. In any event, it has been the policy of the department to rely on advice and encouragement rather than enforcement measures against employers who are not fulfilling the quota.
Nevertheless, whenever the quota system has been discussed —and I remember such discussions among trade unions when I was a member of the Social Insurance and Industrial Welfare Committee of the TUC —the upshot has always been that we should keep the quota system because it was better than nothing.
However, I believe that organisations concerned with disabled persons' employment are now seeking the introduction of laws that would give individuals the opportunity to take action against being unfairly treated by employers. The Department of Employment has opposed this to date saying that an anti-discrimination law would be complex to draft and uncertain in its application. That view is not held by a number of eminent lawyers practising in the employment field. The House of Commons Employment Committee in 1990 concluded that the Government should explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunities legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and should report to Parliament on the potential costs and effects in the labour market. In addition, as we have heard tonight, there has been recent legislation in the United States, which clearly ought to be thoroughly examined.
Although the Government's opposition has to date remained unchanged, since apparently they still prefer to rely on education and persuasion, we have heard tonight of the progress made with the Bill in the other place. We shall no doubt have the opportunity of further debate when it reaches us. I hope that the Government will move from their previous position and will be prepared to give it a sympathetic run in both Houses.
There have, of course, been no fewer than 15 attempts to introduce anti-discrimination legislation by way of Private Members' Bills since 1982, but all have failed to make progress. However, I detect a change in general perceptions. It may very well be that this time round there will be a shift in the Government's position. In our view, it is the job of Government to protect the vulnerable. Disabled people are vulnerable. They are

1589
vulnerable to prejudice and stereotyping and are thus being prevented from playing the part that many wish to play in their communities and in society.
If by chance we fail to achieve overall legislation and continue with the quota system, I commend to the Government the propositions made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in opening the debate. We really ought to look at making the system work better. We can do that through appropriate publicity and by ensuring that employers know that if they accept the recommendations of Government and accept people from the register those people will be willing and able to play a full part in their enterprises and will undoubtedly turn out to be very good workers indeed. We have to do something to assist people who want to work but are currently not able to do so because of prejudice and stereotyping.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject tonight.
6.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, along with all other noble Lords I should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on introducing this debate, which is so apposite on the 50th anniversary of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. I also echo the words of my noble friend Lord Holderness when he stressed how much my noble friend Lord Campbell had done, and is doing, for disabled people over the years. Exactly the same could be said of my noble friend Lord Holderness.
The 1944 Act was, we believe, a landmark Act for disabled people. In addition—and I should stress that this is in addition—to establishing the quota scheme, it also contained powers for the provision of vocational training, employment rehabilitation and sheltered employment for severely disabled people. In discussing the quota scheme itself we should not lose sight of the fact that it was merely part of a range of measures to help people with disabilities to secure employment.
Of course I accept that things have moved on considerably since 1944. Economic and legislative developments have moved past the Act in some areas. More importantly, the aspirations of disabled people and the attitudes within society have changed. Disabled people, quite rightly, are increasingly asserting their wishes to be treated as individuals, to train and work alongside non-disabled people and to earn their living in productive jobs in open employment.
A reflection of those changes is that increasingly help with employment and training is being provided through modern schemes and services aimed at meeting the needs of the individual and the employer in their localities. For example, the training and enterprise councils and their Scottish equivalents, the local enterprise companies, are now responsible for training and help with enterprise. The special schemes, some of which were introduced under the 1944 Act, will soon be replaced and enhanced by Access to Work—about which I shall say a little more later on.
1590
The vast majority of people with disabilities who are helped by the Department of Employment are now helped by the integrated mainstream employment and training provision, a situation that was certainly not envisaged in 1944, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, quite rightly stressed, in many cases many of the training schemes relaxed entry for disabled people.
Nevertheless, the 1944 Act remains important and relevant in its 50th year. Many severely disabled people depend on the support that the Department of Employment can give them because of that Act—in sheltered factories and workshops (Remploy was mentioned by one speaker earlier today, and only this morning I was visiting a county council sheltered workshop in Gloucestershire; I was very pleased with what it was doing and the help that it was able to provide) and also with the supported placements which we offer with employers. As my noble friend Lord Campbell stressed, we have recently announced changes to the funding arrangements for supported employment under the terms of the Act which we believe will give more flexibility to providers to offer a range of support in special workshops and placements.
There was some discussion of the numbers of disabled people by both my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Both quite rightly referred to the figure of about 6 million disabled people in the country. They rightly accepted that that was far larger than the number of those who were actually available for work and wanted to work and were otherwise active in the labour market. It may help if I share with the House some of our research on the sort of numbers we are talking about.
The research I am referring to is Employment and Handicap published in 1990. This seemed to show that there were 1.27 million disabled people—3.8 per cent. of the working population—of whom about 3.1 per cent. (1.06 million) were registrable. The number of actually registered disabled people was a mere 371,000 in 1993. In 1950 it had peaked at a little over 900,000 and has steadily declined since—I shall say a word or two later as to why people are not registering and what has happened—that is a little over 1 per cent. of the population today, well below the 3 per cent. that we are aiming for.
In terms of the numbers of economically active disabled people in employment, on the basis of the same research we reckon that some 78 per cent. are in work and 22 per cent. are wanting work and are therefore unemployed by any definition. Of the little over 980,000 who were in work, some 844,000 were employees and the remainder self-employed.
Perhaps I may turn to further evidence relating to ILO unemployment rates, based on the Labour Force Surveys which come out each year and now each quarter. The figures have to be treated with some caution in that the LFS uses a wider definition of disability than under the 1944 Act. It includes people with short-term health problems and impairments and is therefore not strictly comparable with the data I have just quoted. The interesting point about those figures is that they show that since spring 1990 there has been, as we would all accept, a consistent rise in unemployment

1591
for all classes of people as measured by the ILO figures. There has been a consistent rise for both able-bodied people and the disabled during the recession. However, the proportion of people with a limiting health problem who are unemployed by the ILO definition has risen by only 22 per cent. between spring 1989 and winter 1992–93 compared with those without the limiting health problem, the able bodied population, for whom there was a rise of 56 per cent. over the same period. I believe that those figures show considerable improvement in the work of the Employment Service and the attitudes of employers in that the rate of unemployment for disabled people does not seem to have increased as fast as for others.
I now wish to turn to the quota. The House is aware that the scheme imposes a duty on all employers with 20 or more employees to employ registered disabled people as 3 per cent. of their employees. My noble friend Lord Campbell also asked whether special quotas for particular employment sectors have been used. I am aware of one special percentage that has been prescribed. That is 0.1 per cent. for employment as a master or crew member of a British ship. However, other than that I am not aware that much use has been made of the provision.
I turn now to the mainstream quota. As noble Lords will he aware, there are criminal sanctions if an employer dismisses a registered disabled person unreasonably while below quota and also if an employer engages someone other than a registered disabled person without a permit while below quota. That is the scheme in essence. However, as all noble Lords have made clear, there are not enough disabled people registered under the scheme to allow all employers subject to the 3 per cent. quota to meet it. As I made clear, it looks as though the figure is something around 1 per cent.
It is because the scheme has a dated approach to employing disabled people and because disabled people are less inclined to register that we have had the scheme under review. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Campbell that we have not yet come to any conclusion, but we shall continue to keep it under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, touched on the question of why people do not register. There were many who were eligible to register but many did not do so because they did not consider themselves to be disabled. They objected to being labelled as disabled. They see no advantage to themselves as individuals in being registered; or in many cases they see disadvantages to themselves in being registered. Perhaps I may support that argument with anecdotal evidence. On my visit this morning to a jobcentre in Gloucester, the disability employment adviser there again confirmed that in her view, although she would like to see many more people registered, a great many saw no particular advantage themselves in registration and in fact could not be persuaded of any virtue in registering or in the need to register.
The quota scheme has both its critics and supporters. We recognise concerns that the quota scheme is not as effective as was originally envisaged. We have been quite open about that. However, we believe that there
1592
are some positive aspects to the scheme. It helps some registered disabled people to obtain and keep employment; and it can be argued that it can set an aspirational target for employers. As my noble friend Lord Holderness put it, it has done something at least to keep open the eyes of some employers to the abilities of many disabled people. As we have always said, it is the abilities of people that we must look at.
The Employment Service will continue to administer the scheme as part of our continuing campaign to educate and persuade employers to implement good practice in the employment of disabled people. We believe that the scheme to some extent underpins those efforts.
The quota scheme has continued for many years. However, as many have made clear, there is still no consensus in favour either of its repeal or replacement. There are arguments to support a wide range of options for dealing with it. But I have to say that we are not yet convinced by any of the arguments to support any of those options.
The House may be aware that my department recently commissioned research from the Social Policy Research Unit at York University—I have the statistics here—into legislation and services for disabled people in 15 different countries. Its report found no clear answers on the effectiveness of different approaches.
Many of our European colleagues operate quota schemes or something along those lines. Again research showed that there were problems associated with quota schemes in all the countries examined and that compliance was not widespread. My noble friend Lord Campbell referred to France and Germany. They impose a levy on employers who do not meet the quota with the main aim of redistributing income from employers who are unable to meet quota requirements to those who can. However, most employers appear to choose to pay the levy rather than to meet their obligations under the quota. In many cases therefore the quota does not provide the incentive to employ disabled people. In effect it simply provides a way for employers to avoid meeting their obligations and does little to change employers' attitudes to the needs and aspirations of disabled people. Certainly I should like to commend that research to my noble friend and all others who have spoken in the debate.
I wish to make it clear that the Government are prepared to look at all possible schemes in all other countries to see just how effective they are. So far I have merely mentioned those countries which operate on what one would call quota principles, but the research also looks at the slightly different way in which the Americans, Australians and many others pursue the problem. For example, among the non-European countries we studied both the United States and Australia. As noble Lords know, they have recently introduced anti-unfair discrimination legislation. Legislation against disability discrimination is a comparatively recent development. The report com-mented, for example, that it is unclear how effective such legislation has been in America and how effective it will continue to be.

1593
Noble Lords have touched upon other alternatives to the quota scheme. Perhaps I may say a word or two about a number of them. I do not think that anyone suggested that we could simply resolve the problem by reducing the quota level from 3 per cent. to some lower figure. I believe that everyone accepts that that would not do anything to help disabled people in employment and would send out the wrong signal to disabled people and to employers. We could, of course, remove the requirement to register. Again, I do not believe that that would obviously help disabled people into employment.
There are considerable problems with self-certification: who would decide on qualifications, and so on? There have been problems encountered in other countries with self-certification. It is also likely to be a burden on employers, as they would not be familiar with the appropriate requirements. It could in addition create uncertainty both in the minds of disabled people and employers. I believe that there would also be the risk of abuse. It would be difficult to avoid that.
The third line that has been pursued most actively by my noble friend is that we should campaign to encourage much greater registration—to encourage more people to register. As I have said, registration is a voluntary matter. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in encouraging people to register. But certainly I would be happy to consider my noble friend's suggestion as part of our review of quota. I ought to point out some of the difficulties that I see following on such a point.
As we have all made quite clear, at present it is mathematically impossible for all employers to meet the quota as we have only about 1 per cent. of the workforce who are registered as disabled. Therefore, to be effective we would need to encourage several hundred thousand disabled people to register. I am not confident that there are sufficiently large numbers of disabled people who would consider that registration would be of benefit to them personally. Moreover, I believe that a campaign which sought to persuade disabled people that a large number ought to register would be extremely costly. I know about the costs of some of those campaigns and I suspect that any impact would be likely to be short lived. Having said that, I can give an assurance to my noble friend that the department will certainly continue to encourage registration as far as possible. But we believe that it must be a matter for the voluntary decision of any individual as to whether he or she wishes to register.
I touched earlier on the American position, and some mention was made of what we shall refer to as the Berry Bill in another place. Perhaps I may just say a word or two about that Bill. It would not be right for me to comment in detail on a Bill that is going through another place at the moment other than to say that, as I believe we have made clear, we are not convinced that simply outlawing discrimination against disabled people would necessarily improve their prospects for employment. It would be very difficult to frame such legislation, and experience in other countries shows that its application
1594
is uncertain. Perhaps I may end by repeating what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said only yesterday in another place:
"As I have indicated to the House … 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 [referring to the Bill] and thereafter is to look at the practical implications of the Bill and that will be done". —[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/94; col. 15.]
To return to the SPRU report, it concluded by stressing that one had to take considerable care about transferring lessons that have been learnt in one country to another country. They are not necessarily transferable. The appropriateness of a particular measure depends fundamentally on its historical and contemporary place within a country's employment provision for disabled people. Nevertheless, research findings provide useful information on legislative alternatives and are helping to inform our review of the options.
We recognise that quota has been an issue for some time, but we have to be certain that whatever action we take will provide effective help for disabled people. Our decision must increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities. It must not result in an unreasonable burden on employers which stops job creation and reduces precisely the opportunities that we are trying to open up.
Of course, we have not put other matters on hold while we review the position on quota. I can certainly reassure my noble friend Lord Holderness that we are currently taking other action to help disabled people to participate fully in the labour market and to promote employment opportunities for them. For example, with the introduction of Access to Work on 6th June, we shall have in place a key part of our framework for practical support for disabled people. Indeed, our schemes and services compare well with those of other countries. From our knowledge of provision in other countries I am pretty confident that Access to Work compares most favourably with what is available elsewhere. And we are more advanced than many countries in integrating disabled people into work with non-disabled people, in working with the voluntary sector and—again I should like to stress a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—in raising employer awareness of the abilities of disabled people. For example, our disability symbol has now been adopted by nearly 700 employers, an increase of over 100 per cent. since June last year. And we are currently promoting that symbol to disabled people and their employers through national and local advertising and marketing campaigns. We are also helping people with disabilities to find and retain employment. In the year ending 31st March 1993, Employment Service specialist advisers placed over 40,000 unemployed disabled people. In the year ending 31st March 1994 they are likely to have placed over 50,000 unemployed disabled people; and for the year ending 31st March 1995 we have challenged them to place at least 55,000.
We need to build on those successes. Irrespective of the outcome of our review of quota, I believe that we need to work to ensure that the full range of support, advice, education and persuasion work together. It is

1595
through this help that we shall see attitudes changed, barriers removed and more disabled people trained and in work.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to all the speakers who have taken part in this debate. I am also glad that they have not had to watch the clock and trim their proposed speeches, as so often happens in debates with a limited time. They have therefore given to us the full benefit of their views and thoughts on the quota scheme.
I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Holderness, who was on the advisory body concerned in 1944 when the Act was passed and was coming into effect. The noble Lord underlined for us very clearly the dilemma posed by the desire that I believe we all share to provide all possible opportunities for handicapped people and avoid discrimination, and the objections to handicapped people being treated as a difficult, expensive and less acceptable group. That is the dilemma with which governments and all of us are faced. We must try to ensure that any new Acts of Parliament do not pretend that that dilemma does not exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke to us about the less visible handicaps. He gave the example of dyslexia, and the unfortunate descriptions that can be given in official documents to various conditions. His noble friend Lord Rochester spoke to us from his experience of dealing with the administration of personnel and management in business and industry. I am particularly grateful to him for taking part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, gave suggestions for the future. I am very pleased that she supported my suggestions for improving the system of registration and urging the Government to do the best that they possibly can through publicity to promote a system to get more of the people who could qualify and benefit to register on the list. The noble Baroness also contributed her impression of the past attitude of trade unions to the quota scheme. What she said was entirely consistent with my own understanding: that is to say, most of them, like disabled organisations, were keen to continue the scheme, although they realised its defects because it was better than nothing.
I am also particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley. At the outset I must say that I agree with him—I hope I did not give any other impression—that the 1944 Act dealt with much more than merely the quota scheme. But of course in this debate I could only concentrate on that scheme, which, as other speakers have pointed out, is very topical and concerns a lot of people in the country. I hope that I conveyed appreciation of the work of our predecessors in Parliament in the early 1940s who produced not only this scheme but also other parts of that Act which were far-sighted enough to be relevant or are being replaced by similar schemes even today.
I am grateful to my noble friend for producing so far as possible the up-to-date figures. We were struck by the figure that he gave of only 371,000 disabled people being registered for the purposes of this Act, while three or four times that number in the country are known to be
1596
disabled; and by the fact that the larger number in the country as a whole, 78 per cent., are employed but as many as 22 per cent. are seeking employment. If I am wrong in those figures I hope that my noble friend will correct me. I think that that is what he was telling us. Again, I think that we have to take on board the difference between the figure for those who are registered and the very much larger figure for those who could be registered and are available for work.
I am grateful also to my noble friend for keeping us informed on the use of the special percentages in the 1944 Act. It does not surprise me that only one has ever been put into operation. Some of us would have thought that none had been put into operation. It is very wise to limit the quota to 1 per cent. in the case of people in charge of vessels at sea.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may correct my noble friend. The figure was 0.1 per cent. and not 1 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend. I thought he said 1 per cent. but it was very much less.
At this stage I must say, because I did not mention it in my opening speech, that the safety of the public must come first. Of course there are suitable jobs for disabled persons in particular capacities at sea. However, many people would feel more secure when they travel in British ships knowing that those in charge of the ship do not suffer from bad eyesight or some other handicap which would be inappropriate for the work they do.
I am not surprised that at the moment the Government are continuing the quota scheme. As I said, it would cause great anxiety if they were to announce that they intended to bring it to an end unless there was something which the whole country was already prepared to accept which was a better replacement.
I asked about the schemes in France and Germany, to which my noble friend replied. However, he did not mention the registration part of their schemes, in which many of us are interested. He confirmed my observation that those countries impose financial penalties and levies and that a number of employers simply pay the levy and do not bother to employ the disabled people. That is thought to be unacceptable in this country. However, this country could learn from their registration schemes, which have quotas as high as 6 per cent.—not our 3 per cent. —and fines can be levied if employers do not observe them.
I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to the Government for their long reply, which dealt with most of my points. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Extradition Criteria
7.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswickrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria the Home Secretary applies when exercising his discretion over extradition cases.

1597
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting my Question to the Government and opening this short debate on what I believe to be a very important subject, I should first offer a form of apology to the House in regard to my Question of 31st March (which was the last Question before the Easter Recess) on the subject of Sue Hagan and Sally Croft and the recommendation of the court that they should be extradited to America to face certain charges.
A number of noble Lords assumed that I was trying to affect or alter a decision that had been made by the court. That was not my intention. Nor did I at any time indicate that I wanted that to happen. I asked whether the Government would delay the extradition of those two ladies until your Lordships had had a chance to debate the substance of the matter. I did not ask for a debate on the court's decision because I am fully aware that we cannot interfere with a decision of a court nor indeed would I want to do so. However, my intentions were not taken on board. Strangely enough, the information that the Minister could have given me on that day was given by the judge who heard the plea for judicial review to be granted, which delayed—as it will delay for some period and may delay for all time—the extradition of those two ladies to America.
Before going further, I want to make the point that I am aware that the case is in substance now sub judice. I should like to put right any misconception. I have never accepted, as have some noble and learned Lords in this House, that the law is always right and that court decisions are always correct. I do not believe that Timothy Evans or Derek Bentley would have subscribed to that point of view. I do not accept that a court must be right in every instance. Courts can make mistakes.
Having said that, I now ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria the Home Secretary applies when assessing or adjudicating on recommendations from the court. We must be clear that it is not the courts which extradite. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Home Secretary.
In my Question a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that I had had some correspondence on this case with one of the most esteemed noble and learned Lords in this House; namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. The issues caused him some very worrying thoughts. He considered that we might be making a serious mistake. I spent some considerable time this afternoon with the noble and learned Lord discussing extradition. He made clear that in his view, relevant to the Answer I received a fortnight ago, the appeal allowed for judicial review had been based on the possibility that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs had not followed through the issue with all the diligence that he might have brought to it. If he does his job, he should go through with a fine-tooth comb any court case that recommends the deportation from this country of two women who are subject to Her Majesty the Queen to make sure that he agrees with the decision. All that the court will do is examine a prima facie case.
The Minister who first brought up the idea that the two ladies would be extradited was the right honourable
1598
Kenneth Clarke, when he was Home Secretary. There is some doubt as to whether Mr. Clarke went through the case before he made his recommendation. I have heard it said that he rubber-stamped the decision. That is not the function of a Home Secretary in a case of such importance. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for the time he spent with me and the advice he gave. I repeat that he is extremely worried about what is taking place.
I asked whether the Home Secretary examines such cases personally. It is to be hoped that he does. Examples could be taken of cases in which he has formulated his criteria, comparing them, now that we are full members of the European Union, with what other countries do. Attempts were made to extradite from Germany people involved in the same case—the same charges; the same period of time; everything the same. But the German Minister who dealt with the matter did not think that the case warranted it.
To begin with, does the Home Secretary take into account the length of time which has elapsed between the alleged indiscretion or crime and the moment when the charge is made? In a particular case—I am not allowed to mention it by name—five years elapsed before the Americans even wanted to take two of our citizens into custody. It is now nearly nine years since that took place. Does he also consider when extraditing people the consequences of their crime? This case was supposed to be conspiracy to murder. But nobody was hurt and nothing was damaged. In my opinion, the Home Secretary should apply different criteria. If he applies the existing criteria to authorise something which only he can do, in my opinion he is taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
Another point I want to raise is whether or not our Home Secretary will take into consideration what happened to the people who have already been dealt with in relation to this conspiracy and on the same charge. Other people in America were dealt with, though nobody was taken into custody. They plea-bargained their way out of a gaol sentence. Hypothetically, we may be sending back two people to carry the can when the main perpetrators in America have bargained their way out of any responsibility. If the Home Secretary follows that criteria he will be adopting a very dangerous course.
I have spoken to former Home Secretaries—not about this specific case because they do not have the detail. What comes across clearly is that it was only when this case—the one about which I am discussing the criteria to be applied—was brought to your Lordships' House that it hit the headlines. Two weeks ago I said that I was worried and that many other people in a widening circle were concerned about what was happening. If I had not intervened in your Lordships' House two weeks ago those two ladies would now be in an American gaol. I say "in gaol" because no bail would be allowed. People who know me are aware that I will always try to prevent injustice if I believe an injustice is taking place. I had not met anyone involved in this case until the day before I tabled the Question.
Suppose the two ladies, in my hypothesis, lose the case and the judicial procedure and are recommended

1599
for deportation; the matter then lies completely in the hands of the Home Secretary. I suggest that in cases such as this he must be extremely careful to apply the criteria that will give a fair crack of the whip to subjects of Her Majesty the Queen as well as being fair to the country applying for extradition. Suppose, in his wisdom, the Home Secretary authorises the extradition to America of the two ladies in question: what protection will he guarantee them? After all, they are still British citizens.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I know that he is trying extremely hard to restrain his remarks to the criteria rather than to any specific case. As he said at the beginning of his speech, he recognises that the case is sub judice and should not be discussed in this House. I hope that he will be careful to stick to the criteria.
Lord Dean of Reswiek: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention made by the Leader of the House in his normal and courteous manner. I shall do my best to conclude my remarks in the spirit he suggests. My point is that if any citizen of this country is extradited, whether to America, Malaya or Thailand, what protection will be afforded to him or her? For instance, whatever the country to which they are sent, will they have the protection of the ambassador and his staff? Will they be provided with observers at the trial to ensure that it is a fair and just trial in accordance with our extremely high standards, offering a fair crack of the whip to the person charged? Or will they come totally within the remit of the country to which they are sent for trial and the case rest solely on its standards rather than ours?
I have regard to the fact that only last year—I agree that it was not popular with everybody—the Prime Minister went out of his way to bring back to this country two women who had been convicted of extremely serious charges of drug smuggling. I am not therefore being unreasonable when I suggest that we look very carefully before we extradite anybody.
As many noble Lords are aware, I have been in politics for a long time—from being a local councillor to being a privileged Member in another place—and I am grateful to be able to address your Lordships' House on a case like this. But I issue—not a word of warning; that is the wrong word—a caution to the Home Secretary. If, finally, he incurs public odium by authorising this extradition, in my opinion it will scar him politically for the rest of his life. People in this country are starting to wake up to what may be about to take place.
I said that such a decision would scar the Home Secretary. The Leader of the House may possibly agree with me. If this place does not refer to the matter—it obviously will later when it becomes defacto—certainly the House of Commons will not let him forget it. I have put my Question. I am grateful for the tolerance of your Lordships and the Leader of the House. On that I rest my case.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Dean in what he said. I support his insistence that nothing that he or I, and I expect others, may say is in any way a criticism of the courts. In that sense, therefore, the question of whether the case is sub judice or not does not arise. It will be a decision of the Home Secretary—a political and moral decision. I am afraid that if he sends those ladies back it will be an extremely immoral decision. But that is his political decision and it has nothing to do with the courts whatever they decide next week.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not mind giving way once, but I have only just got under way. What does the noble Lord want?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is because the noble Earl has just got under way that I wish to intervene. The noble Earl said that in his opinion discussion of this case was not sub judice because it meant no contradiction of the courts. But that is not the way that I understand the sub judice rule to work in your Lordships' House. Surely the sub judice rule says that any case before the courts cannot be discussed in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a point of interest. But I am not sure whether he is in touch with the situation. Last Wednesday, about this time, I was waiting to hear from the solicitor of the two ladies as to what time to turn up at Gatwick police station where the following morning these ladies would be—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to intervene so early in the speech of the noble Earl. However, the rules of the House are quite clear. This case is sub judice in my opinion. Leave to move for judicial review has been given by the High Court against the decision. The rules of sub judice in your Lordships' House are clearly set out in the Companion. The rules make it quite clear that this case is sub judice.
The noble Earl's noble friend tried extremely hard not to refer to the case and referred only to the criteria. But I must say to the noble Earl, who is held in the highest possible regard by all sides of the House and is a distinguished former Leader of the House, that he would expect me to point out to him that the rules of the House are quite clear. The noble Earl therefore ought not to refer to the case before the courts.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not quite understand what the Leader of the House is telling us. He says that this case is sub judice, but I understand that the case mentioned has already been in front of the court. What is being questioned is the judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision. I should rot have thought that that was sub judice. The case is settled as far as the English court is concerned. The rules about sub judice are based on the premise that no one in Parliament or elsewhere shall do anything to influence a

1601
court of law. That is not the situation we are in. The situation we are in is that an inquiry is to be made as to whether or not the action of the Home Office is subject to review.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord tries hard to draw a distinction but I do not think it is a valid distinction. The case is before the courts. It is not for us to discuss the details of the case, but the case involves the matters which his noble friend was seeking to raise. The sub judice rule was designed to protect the people whose case is before the courts and to make sure that there is not unfair and prejudicial discussion before Parliament. My duty is to seek to advise the House. It is for the House to decide these matters but it is my understanding of the rules that this is clearly a sub judice matter and therefore should not be discussed in your Lordships' House on this occasion.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, Leaders of the House come and go and they do not always agree with each other. I am afraid that I do not accept in any way the views of the present Leader of the House, although I know that he is a man of the highest integrity—like these women are. Everyone who knows them regards their integrity as total, yet last Wednesday I was about to set off for Gatwick police station where these ladies were going to be manacled, taken to America, put in prison for a year—possibly in leg irons. That was the situation last Wednesday.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am not going to keep on giving way. I give way to the Leader of the House at the moment. I am giving way at the moment only to the Leader of the House, which will keep me busy, I think, for the next few minutes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that—
The Earl of Longford: No, I am sorry, I am not giving way.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, my Lords, I have no alternative but to move that—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am not giving way and I must ask the Leader of the House to protect me from this.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have no alternative but to move that the noble Earl be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Earl be no longer heard.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene briefly as I understand that a debate now takes place on this issue. Without wishing in any way to make the life of my noble friend the Leader of the House more difficult, I was listening rather carefully to what the noble Earl was saying and, in my ignorance, no doubt, I was not aware that he was discussing the case. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House say where this bar on our proceedings falls?
1602
I understand that we may not discuss the case, but was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, discussing the case when he was telling us of his visit to a police station? I am not entirely clear on that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, perhaps I may seek to help my noble friend. The position is quite clear. The Companion states on page 52 that the rules of the House are that a case is deemed to be sub judice from the moment a petition for leave to appeal is presented to the House of Lords. The rules are quite clear that a matter is before the court and as such there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
While I am on my feet perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is enormously respected, that I understand the strength of feeling which brings him to this situation. But I ask him whether he feels he has to persist when my noble friend makes the point that in his view this is such a flagrant breach of the rules of the House that he has moved his Motion. I would very much like to try to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his Motion but I would feel it was right to do so only if the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would indicate to us that he would not persist in discussing the case which is sub judice and which I do not believe should be discussed in this House.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Earl is discussing the case. He had only just reached the point where he was telling us about an event that occurred last Wednesday. Until then it had nothing to do with this case. The point I made before is that the case has already been settled by the courts. I have read the Companion. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Dean, tabled a Question on the subject, I read it myself. My understanding of the Companion is what I described before. The rule of sub judice is that nothing should be said that would influence a court. I am not just dealing with our Companion; I am dealing with the common law. No one anywhere has the right to influence a court of law when it is deciding an issue. But no one is doing that, because the case has been heard. All that is coming up is the question of a review of the decision of the Home Office and the Home Secretary in regard to a certain affair. I have suffered on a previous occasion from the Motion that has just been moved that the Member be no longer heard. But, if ever there was a denial of British justice, it is this. We have not even heard the noble Earl, so I am opposed to the Motion that he should be no longer heard.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I wonder if I may seek to help the noble Lord by reading a further extract from the Companion which I think is highly relevant to the position we find ourselves in. It states:
"Matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to in any Motion or debate on a Motion or in any Question, including any supplementary Question, from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court".
That is quite clear. The noble Lord is entitled to his view as to whether it is a sensible Motion but it is certainly the way this House operates. It operates in that way because the House has thought for a very long time that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the

1603
trial of a case. It is the courts that we are seeking to protect so that there is a fair trial and those whose affairs are being considered have them considered properly and fairly without comment in Parliament when they are before the court. That is the issue, and that is why my noble friend has moved his Motion. I should like to ask him to withdraw it but I cannot ask him to withdraw it unless the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is prepared to give us an undertaking that he will not refer to this case.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his courtesy. I have no intention of refusing to talk about the grave and terrible injustice that may be done to these two women. Perhaps I may put a point that has not been expressed clearly because I was stopped so early in the day by the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale. It is easy to ask, "Why don't we wait until this review has taken place?" There is a very good answer. Within a few hours of that review, if it went against them, they would be in handcuffs. I want noble Lords to realise that. It is not a question of getting the decision and then being able to have a debate about it later. They would be in handcuffs. They were about to go off to America in handcuffs on Thursday of last week.
Let me put the matter as plainly as possible. If this matter cannot be discussed until the court has made its decision, that means that it cannot be discussed at all until the two women have gone to America. It is a question of now or never. Therefore, I am asking the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, to exercise all his well-known qualities of statesmanship. When the Companion was drawn up this situation was not contemplated. It is an exceptional and unique situation. If the matter is left until after the court's decision, that will prevent any political discussion at all. I believe that that is plain enough. I have no intention of failing to go on with the case.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Earl raises the point again. I understand and am grateful to him for his courtesy. There is no flexibility given to me and the rules are quite clear. It is my task to invite the House to seek to carry out the rules as they are set down. I wish that there was a solution more acceptable to the noble Earl, but I do not believe that there is one available to us.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from the position where I stand, I believe that no one is going to quibble with the words, or the interpretation which has been put on them, which are contained in the Companion. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, acted very quickly, if not precipitately, as soon as there was the slightest possibility that my noble friend was going to transgress. My noble friend is well aware of both the intention and the advice which is generally freely available to the House at this time.
It is against this background that my noble friend is seeking to do what everyone in the House understands has been his conviction; namely, that a wrong has been done and that he intends to raise the matter. My noble friend has to demonstrate beyond doubt that he is
1604
transgressing. Advice will be given to the Leader of the House by the Clerk that that has taken place. The noble Lord has moved a debatable Motion which means that we can debate it for as long as we wish. There is no intention of doing that.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, ought to wait a little longer before he presses his case. In my view nothing has been said which is of such great moment to justify taking the action which is contemplated. Until now there has been good order, humour and passion on the issue, but no one has said anything to which anyone could take grave exception. My noble friend has been in this House for many years and has long experience. He spoke in an earlier debate and we know of his antecedents in this matter. He knows fully what he is entitled to say and what the consequences will be if he transgresses. I suggest that he be allowed a little time to make his case. If, in the light of that, the House feels differently, then it must act accordingly.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I strongly believe that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale is using a pile-driver to crack a nut. I believe that is quite wrong and that we should get on with the debate. If he can withdraw his Motion with as much grace as he can muster, I feel sure that that will represent the feeling of the House.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I would like to find a happy outcome for this matter. I am quite clear that we cannot allow the rules of the House to be transgressed. I indicated to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that if he was able to make his remarks which he feels passionately about and without transgressing the rules of the House, I will be delighted. If he were to give some indication that he will try to do that I shall be the first to indicate to my noble friend that he should withdraw his Motion. I would very much like to hear what the noble Earl has to say and I am sure that applies to many other noble Lords. As Leader of the House, I do not believe that I can allow the rules of the House to be transgressed. If the noble Earl can indicate that he will at least try to make his remarks within the rules of the House then I shall be highly delighted.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are in some considerable difficulty here because the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has indicated that what he wishes to bring before the House is precisely this case. He has a difficulty. I have great admiration for his desire to bring this case into the daylight and to try to do something for these two people. It is very difficult for him to do so without going beyond the sub judice limits. If he can find a way then I would support the withdrawal of the Motion. If it is not possible for the noble Earl to make his points without trespassing beyond the rules of sub judice then I would have to support the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is obviously a very serious step for any Back-Bencher to take in moving the Motion as I have done. I did, it with a very heavy heart. I have listened to observations on this

1605
matter from all round the Chamber. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that I was on the Woolsack the last time this matter was raised so I do have a little knowledge of the history of the case which we are trying to avoid discussing. At that time there was no question of it being sub judice because the judicial process had come to a grinding halt.
The reason that it is now sub judice is because the matter is back before the High Court in terms of a judicial review of the Home Secretary's actions, as the noble Lord rightly said, in that particular case. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was sailing pretty close to the wind at one stage, as clearly did my noble friend the Leader of the House. The noble Lord accepted that and steered his course very carefully away. That is what most of us would do in the particular predicament in which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, found himself. Alas, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, clearly feels so passionately about this case that he is unable to give the response for which my noble friend the Leader of the House asks.
This is such a serious matter that the right thing for me to do, and because of the wise advice which noble Lords have given me from all sides of the Chamber, is to withdraw the Motion at this moment, but to reserve the right to put it again within the same debate, if necessary.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry that I have come into this debate a little late and therefore I am picking it up secondhand, so to speak. I wonder whether the House would adjourn for five minutes so that some of us may have the opportunity of making representations to those who are more intimately concerned with this matter. Then we could no doubt resume where we left off, if needs be.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is perfectly satisfactory to me. My noble friend must first withdraw his Motion, because the Question has to be put. The procedures have to be followed. When his Motion has been withdrawn, the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, can be heard.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord has given notice of his intention to withdraw his Motion but it has not yet been formally withdrawn. If it is, then perhaps we can adjourn for five minutes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, is a most admirable one. It reinforces my wish to withdraw my Motion at this moment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, here I stand. I was in the middle of a speech—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think that it is now technically for me to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until, say, 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.39 to 7.46 p.m.]
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, many moons ago I was making a speech. Since then there have been many interventions— all of them valuable. I shall try to continue where I left off. I do not want to provoke anybody unnecessarily. I am committed totally to the case of these women and to the injustice that will be done to them if they are sent back to America. However, I am not the boss of affairs and what matters in the end is what the Government do. So I want to know whether the Leader of the House can give us any help here. I hope that he can. Can the noble Lord say whether, if I or any other noble Lord, such as my noble friend Lord Dean, wait until after the decision of the court, there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter in the House before the women are sent back?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not really in a position to give any undertakings which are rightly matters for decision by the Home Secretary. I am sure that the noble Earl would not expect me to do that. However, I recognise the strength of feeling and, if there is an appropriate and proper opportunity for debate within the rules of the House, I shall certainly seek to find an opportunity to allow such a debate. I shall rearrange the business if necessary. I cannot reasonably do anything other than refer to the Home Secretary the great concern of the noble Earl and, I suspect, of other Members of the House, who want an opportunity to discuss the matter as soon as they can. I want to make it quite clear that my position is that I shall do whatever I can. I shall certainly inform the Home Secretary of the strength of feeling, but I cannot give any undertakings that would pre-empt his prerogatives and responsibili-ties in this matter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I understand the position that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just set out. Perhaps I may ask him to do one other thing which I do not think goes any further than he is prepared to go. I am not asking the Leader of the House to pre-empt the Home Secretary's decision, but merely to represent to him that, if the judgment of the court went against those two ladies and they were immediately sent back before there was an opportunity for the House to consider the matter, that would be something about which we on this side of the House would feel strongly. Frankly, we would regard that as something which the Government should not properly do.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I certainly give the undertaking to make clear to the Home Secretary the strength of feeling of the Leader of the Opposition. The processes of the courts are not for us to discuss now, but I certainly give the undertaking to ensure that the Home Secretary recognises the strength of feeling.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce that, because the noble Lord the Leader of the House will remember an earlier case where a Home Secretary was greatly chastised because his department had acted too swiftly in removing someone from the jurisdiction

1607
of this country when other matters were in train. That example is something which causes the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to worry. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to pray that in aid, as it were, with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary in ensuring that, whatever happens, these people are not whisked out of the country before anyone has a chance to offer an opinion.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I can only repeat that I have listened with concerned interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said. I am in no position to pre-empt the decisions of the Home Secretary, who must carry out his responsibilities as he sees right, and answer for the consequences of them. That is his duty, which he accepts fully. But I understand what the noble Lord has said. I shall ensure that those points are put to the Home Secretary in good time.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, it is a great pity that that small debate has interfered with the debate on the Motion. I want to refer to the Motion:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria the Home Secretary applies when exercising his discretion over extradition cases".
What is going wrong now?
Lord Wakeharn: My Lords, I just want to help the noble Lord. When we started the exchange we have just had, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was addressing the House. He may have finished, but he may not have finished. We should ascertain that before the noble Lord speaks.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have begun my speech several times, and no one will let me get very far with it. I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Dean, others of my noble friends, or my Front Bench, but I am ready to say no more tonight and to see what happens.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I have given an indication to all sides of the House that I intended to speak in the gap. I must apologise to noble Lords for so doing. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head. I notified both sides of the House that I inadvertently missed by a matter of minutes the statutorily barred period for giving notice to speak in a debate. That was entirely my own clumsiness, for which I apologise. As this is the gap, I am now speaking in it.
I intend to stick strictly to the terms of the Unstarred Question, which are right and proper. The Question is a broad question, but I shall keep to one narrow point. One of the criteria that any Home Secretary must bring to bear when exercising his discretion over extradition cases is where United Kingdom citizens' liberties are threatened because they have to stand trial in the country which is seeking the extradition of those citizens. The matter he must consider is whether citizens of the United Kingdom will receive a fair trial. The standard of fairness is not the standard of a fair trial in the country which is seeking the extradition but the standard of fairness of this country.
1608
Even where the country seeking extradition is a common law country, there are differences in procedures which can prejudice the fairness of the trial. Perhaps I may give an example. In criminal proceedings in this country, as your Lordships know, a learned judge tries the case before a jury. He will assist the jury by guiding it before it comes to a decision on the facts. In some common law countries, that is riot the case. My anxiety is that, without that guidance, juries can be misled. I shall mention just two reasons for that. One is the passage of time that has passed between the incident and the trial and the other is that, in countries that have a different ethos and different mores from this country, different standards may be brought to bear in the minds and hearts of the juries. It is right and proper that any Home Secretary should consider that matter generally.
The only other point I wish to make is that it has been suggested—this is outrageous—of this Administration, in particular, that the Home Secretary might bring to bear matters of high political import in coming to his conclusion; namely, if we do not grant the request of the country seeking extradition then, on other occasions and in other directions—if we wanted that country to extradite persons who had committed crimes against this country—that country would not play ball. In other words the liberties of individuals could be threatened for what are fundamentally diplomatic or political reasons. That is what I am worried about. I am certain that the present Home Secretary would never let that thought cross his mind.
I want again to apologise for speaking, during the gap, but, above all, I, and I am sure the House, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for making this important point; namely, that any Home Secretary must exercise his discretion over extradition cases with immense care.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has given us the opportunity this evening to discuss the criteria relating to the decision of the Home Secretary to grant requests for extradition by countries with whom we have a relevant treaty. In the event, we have not discussed the criteria at any great length or in any depth, and we have discussed a number of other things. In the circumstances, and in the light of all that has gone on. I think, although I have most carefully prepared:, with great effort, a splendid speech on the criteria with which lf think the Home Secretary should conceim himself, it is in the interests of all of us in the House that I should not: proceed to go any further with it tonight, and I hope that: the Minister might feel able, perhaps, to follow my example so that we could discuss this matter more coolly and more rationally at a later time.
Lord Sefton of Garston:: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I could ask a question. Does: my noble friend agree with me that one of the criteria that the Home Secretary should use in deciding the case. is whether—it is no use my noble friend the Chief Whip looking puzzled, I am perfectly in order—as hinted by the previous speaker, the law in practice in the land

1609
concerned complies with our traditions and our ideas of justice? If any person is being extradited to a land where plea bargaining is allowed, will those criteria include refusing extradition if the evidence of someone else given during plea bargaining was a factor in determining the guilt or otherwise of the person accused?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the immediate answer to my noble friend is, yes. I think that the Home Secretary would be wise to take such matters into consideration.
8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made an admirably brief speech and invites me to do the same. In the normal course of events I should be delighted to do so. It is all very fine the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition sighing, but if a noble Lord puts down a Question he must expect an Answer, and I think it is right for me to give the noble Lord, Lord Dean, the Answer to the Question which he asked. If that is boring to your Lordships, all I can say is that it will not take as long as the discussion we have just had, all because of the transgression of our rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked on what criteria the Home Secretary exercises his discretion in deciding extradition cases. The simple answer— but a very important one when the Question which the noble Lord asked is about generalities— is that each case is considered on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to a particular extradition request. As we all now well know, that case is sub judice and I cannot comment upon it. I can therefore reply only in general terms, but I have been asked the Question in general terms by the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Sefton.
The extradition arrangements and the Extradition Act 1989 contain important safeguards which are provided in order to protect the rights of anyone who may become subject to an extradition request. The Secretary of State is involved at two stages in the extradition process. The first is when he has to consider whether to issue an order or an authority to proceed. This enables Bow Street Magistrates' Court to consider the case in committal proceedings.
The second is when the judicial process has run its course and when, if the person who is the subject of the extradition request has not been discharged by the courts, the Secretary of State has to consider whether to issue a warrant for the surrender of that person. At both those stages the Secretary of State has to consider whether the request accords with our law— which is the Extradition Act 1989— as that law applies to the requesting country.
There are some differences in the way in which the law applies to different countries, depending on whether the requesting country is a foreign state which is a
1610
co-signatory to the European Convention on Extradition, or whether it is another foreign state, or whether it is a Commonwealth country. Extradition arrangements with foreign states which are not party to the European convention but with which we have a bilateral treaty, such as the United States, are governed by Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 and this replaced the Extradition Act 1870.
The provisions of bilateral treaties give to the United Kingdom obligations under international law, but we take care when entering into treaty obligations to ensure that there are no inconsistencies with our own extradition law. All our extradition treaties, therefore, recognise, either explicitly or implicitly, that at the end of the day the Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether to order the surrender of a requested person.
At both the stages in which the Secretary of State is involved, each extradition request is carefully scrutinised so as to make sure that it is in the form which is required by our law and that it is supported by the evidence which is required by our law, and in order to ensure that none of the restrictions or prohibitions on surrender in our extradition law or in the arrangements with the country in question applies to that case.
For example, in Schedule 1 cases, such as requests from the United States of America, a person must not be surrendered if the crime of which he or she stands accused was not included in the list of extradition crimes which is annexed to the treaty or if his or her offence was of a political character. In exercising his discretion in Schedule 1 cases, the Secretary of State, as a matter of policy, also takes into account the criteria which are listed in Section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989.
To answer the specific points of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, he was concerned about the protection for the surrendered person. I can tell him that all British citizens surrendered will receive consular protection in the usual way. The consulate will assume responsibility for their welfare and will act as a channel of communication. Under the terms of the treaty, a returned person cannot be tried for any offence other than the one for which he or she is returned.
The Secretary of State will not order the surrender of a person—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps I may put a brief question. There may be circumstances where a person is to be extradited for trial in an area where the alleged offence had taken place and the Home Secretary is satisfied that there could be such prejudice against the person who is to be extradited that it would be almost impossible in his view to hold a fair trial in that area. Could there be a request to the Government carrying out the extradition to ensure that the trial ought to take place in another area of that country where the bias or prejudice may not be so manifest?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am coming to that point. In general, if one extradites a person to another country, that person then comes under the laws of that other country. The Secretary of State will not, however, order the surrender of a person if he believes that it would be unjust or it would be oppressive to return him or her

1611
—and this is not an exhaustive list—because, for example, he or she could not get a fair trial in the country concerned or, referring to the point made by my noble friend Lord Morris, because his or her chances of a fair trial would have been prejudiced by delay or other factors, or because the offence for which the return is sought is a trivial offence.
Representations can be made by or on behalf of a person who is awaiting the Secretary of State's decision on whether or not he or she should be surrendered. Those representations will be considered carefully by the Secretary of State. He will consider them and he
1612
must decide for himself whether to surrender the person concerned. If the Secretary of State does decide to surrender the person, his decision must be both lawful and reasonable.

Commons Registration (East Sussex) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eight o'clock.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS: RESEARCH
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS: RESEARCH
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE EXPOSURE: NHS DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITY
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE EXPOSURE: NHS DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITY
  PARAQUAT
  PARAQUAT
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: BRAILLE
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: BRAILLE
  LONDON TAXI FARES
  LONDON TAXI FARES
  ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: PENALTY FOR ASSISTANCE
  ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: PENALTY FOR ASSISTANCE
  LOCAL PRISONS: CNA AND OVERCROWDING FIGURES
  LOCAL PRISONS: CNA AND OVERCROWDING FIGURES