Sitting of 25 April 1994

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

    Montgomeryshire
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in support of the retention of Montgomeryshire as a principal local authority.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Since publication of the White Paper on local government in Wales, we have received more than 280 letters, more than 4,300 pre-printed leaflets and a petition carrying 16 signatures in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Standing Committee considering the Local Government (Wales) Bill, which voted by a significant majority to give unitary status to Montgomeryshire—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a Standing Committee that has not yet reported to the House. I am sure that he knows that, until a Committee has reported, we do not discuss its proceedings on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister respond to press reports that there is now a significant majority of opinion among relevant hon. Members on both sides of the House in favour of the retention of Montgomeryshire as a unitary authority together with the other two parts of the county of Powys? Will he ensure that that opinion is sustained as the majority opinion of the House at later stages when the matter is considered? Those involved can then plan, on the basis of unitary status, to give the best of services to the people of that historic and significant county in the centre of Wales.
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friends and I remain convinced that the Bill provides the best arrangements for local government in Wales, particularly for Powys and for Montgomeryshire. There will be much more decision making by local councillors in Montgomeryshire than at present, and that will be a better arrangement. Of course, we will reflect further before Report.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider further the issue of financial autonomy, which causes much concern in the county of Montgomeryshire and also in the two counties that I represent, Breconshire and Radnorshire? Will he tell members of the Committee whether he is prepared to address the issues in an open-minded way?
    Mr. Jones: We have already addressed the issues in an open-minded way, and the proposals for the shire committees—especially for Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire—represent a far better arrangement than exists at present. The authorities would be provided with a block grant, probably on the basis of a standard spending assessment-style arrangement, in respect of 100 per cent. of their finances. That is the best way forward.
    Mr. Ron Davies: It is a pity that the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for these matters, is not answering these questions, because this is important. Any proposals that the Under-Secretary may have for strengthening financial devolution will cause considerable resentment, particularly in the boroughs, and any gain that he gets from

    3
    devolution in Montgomery will be more than offset by opposition elsewhere. May I press the hon. Gentleman on the point about Montgomeryshire? A substantial majority of Welsh Members of all parties represented in the House are of the opinion that the proposals for Powys are wrong. If the majority view is that Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire should remain as unitary authorities, will the Under-Secretary accept the wishes of Welsh Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Jones: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is factually right in his claim about the majority of all political parties wanting to go down the road that he suggests. The financial and other arrangements that we propose are far better and they are there for every part of Wales. Other parts of Wales besides the three historic counties of Powys could well choose to avail themselves of the arrangements for decentralisation that we are building in. The new arrangements will come to be regarded as much superior throughout Wales.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of unemployment in Wales at the latest available date; and what was the percentage unemployment rate.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): Seasonally adjusted, the number of claimants unemployed in Wales in March 1994 was 125,300, representing a rate of 9.9 per cent. of the work force.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister considered the proposed closure of the Compton Webb factory in Newport, which for more than 40 years has made uniforms for the military and other public services? Why do the Government continue to give orders to that firm, given that its production is increasingly being transferred to north Africa while our people are being put on social security? Does it have something to do with the fact that the parent company, Coats Viyella, is a regular contributor to Tory party funds?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course not. The Ministry of Defence awards contracts on the basis of good value for money. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can make more things in Wales and meet more of the MOD's requirements. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that unemployment was down 5,751 in the 12 months to March 1994 or the major assistance that his area receives from the urban programme, in Welsh Development Agency cash and from the special development scheme. We are keen to promote more business in his area. I hope that he will work with us because around Wales we are having great success in generating the jobs people want. It is about time that Opposition Members welcomed that.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that inward investment is the key to driving down unemployment in this area of the country and that the Government's policies of providing deregulation, low inflation and low interest rates are attracting inward investment? Will he continue those policies?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What a successful year—another successful year—Wales
    4
    has had. Provisional figures for 1993–94 show £190 million of investment from the rest of the United Kingdom, £356 million from north America, £130 million from the far east and £88 million from the rest of Europe. That brought about 14,000 new and safeguarded jobs to Wales. We need much more such investment and we shall continue to promote it actively. We also want more home-grown jobs. That is also a central policy which the Government are pursuing.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that this afternoon the management of the Pembrokeshire NHS trust will inform 55 members of its staff that they are redundant and that it will seek another 45 redundancies over a short period? Does he accept what that management says—that the cause of those redundancies is the fact that the Welsh Office has not funded the 2.9 per cent. pay rise that nurses and doctors rightly received? Will he investigate the particular circumstances that have caused those 100 jobs to be lost in Pembrokeshire and the likely impact on other trusts and health authorities throughout Wales of the Welsh Office refusing to pay for the 2.9 per cent. pay rise?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not accept the reason; it was not underfunding of the pay rise. I believe that there will be redundancies and reductions in posts at that trust. I believe that they will be in administrative and managerial posts, not in medical care posts, as the hon. Gentleman insinuates. I believe that the redundancies are unique to that trust and are not spreading to other trusts. That implies that the redundancies are to do with the management of that trust. I am sorry that some people will lose their jobs. It is important that it is done in a way that does not damage medical care. That is the clear message that I send to all trusts around Wales. We want the maximum amount of money spent on patient care, which is what I believe the Pembrokeshire trust is trying to do.
    Mr. Murphy: Is the Secretary of State aware that—in addition to the devastating news about the job losses in Pembrokeshire—130 men at the Avesta steelworks in my constituency are to lose their jobs, which will be dispersed to Sheffield and Sweden? What advice will he personally give to my constituents and those made jobless in Pembrokeshire today, who now face either the dole or work in lower-paid, often part-time, jobs?
    Mr. Redwood: Once again, the Opposition are concentrating on the bad news and not looking at the fact that we are generating more jobs than we are losing. Of course I am sad for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but there is a process of change under way that no Government in the world can stop: fashions and demands change. It is important that we carry on succeeding for Wales and promoting Wales. Why does not the hon. Gentleman mention TRW Steering Systems, which announced today 400 new safeguarded jobs at its plant, with a £10 million investment? Why does not he mention the good news from Betws colliery, where a management buy-out is going ahead to bring back 90 jobs? Why does not he mention the Calsonic research and development project, which I was able to initiate two weeks ago? That is people backing Wales and giving Wales the jobs that it needs.

    Housing
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to promote the private rented housing market.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The opportunities provided by the Housing Act 1988, together with Welsh Office support, have already achieved an 18 per cent. increase in private rented housing between 1990 and 1992.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that private rented housing makes a much greater contribution to housing need in most other countries than it does in Britain? Does he welcome the Opposition's somewhat belated recognition of the fact that that sector badly needs a boost?
    Mr. Jones: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition's recognition always seems to be belated; my hon. Friend could have described it as a death-bed repentance. The difference between the two parties is that there is a recognition of reality on the Conservative Benches, but a lack of it on the Opposition Benches.
    I have referred to the 18 per cent. increase in private rented housing and we shall do even better than that. The last census showed that Wales is an increasingly better-housed nation, and we should make the best use of that housing.
    Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister nip in the bud any idea that housing association grant should be made available to private developers and landlords? Does he accept that that would be a misuse of public funds and would lead to increased rents in what we term social housing, where rent levels are already causing concern to Tai Cymru?
    Mr. Jones: I cannot accept such a blinkered approach to housing. We should remain open to all possibilities for making the greatest use of taxpayers' money to achieve the greatest provision of social housing. The hon. Gentleman might care to reflect warmly on what has already been achieved. Since the inception of Housing for Wales, there has been a 100,000 increase in provision.

    European Community
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the importance to the Welsh economy of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The United Kingdom's membership of the European Community has given Wales access to a market of more than 346 million consumers and has enhanced Wales's attractiveness to inward investors looking for a base within the Community. In the past five years' almost 400 inward investment projects from overseas have been recorded in Wales, forecasting the creation or safeguarding of more than 41,000 jobs and representing a capital investment of more than £3 billion.
    Mr. Williams: Why should the people of Wales be denied the rights to consultation, employment protection and equality between men and women, as enshrined in the social chapter and adopted by our 11 partners in the European Union? Why do the Government condemn the British work force to second-rate terms of employment?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Our exemption from the social chapter, which was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is most important to the Welsh economy. The imposition of the social chapter would cause unemployment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, what the Welsh economy needs is more inward investment to provide more jobs. Wales has done well in that respect in the past and will do so in the future.
    Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend has dealt with the importance of inward investment. How much assistance is Wales obtaining from the European Union structural funds? Can he give us an indication of the importance of that assistance?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that we have done well under the new structural funds. As he knows, industrial south Wales has objective 2 status and can expect £146 million between 1994 and 1996. Rural Wales has secured objective 5b status and can expect £143 million over the same period.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister nevertheless agree that the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—that low wages do not make an economy competitive—is exceptionally important to Wales, as we are so dependent on multinational companies with headquarters in mainland Europe? Does he also agree with observations that formed part of the evidence to the Committee—that there are weaknesses in basic literacy and numeracy in Wales, with German school children aged 15 two years ahead of our children in mathematics? We cannot go on relying on low wages or we will be condemning our workers to permanent pauperdom in Tory sweatshops.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: But the hon. Gentleman will know that many factories are in Wales precisely because it is the best place in the European Community for them to invest. The fact that our wages are low compared to those in the United Kingdom and Europe is certainly taken into account in decisions about the location of factories and investments from overseas. Many countries in Europe envy us because production costs in Wales are lower than theirs.

    Agriculture
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from fanning unions on the implications of general agreement on tariffs and trade reforms for the future of agriculture in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the assessment of the implications of the GATT agreement published by the National Farmers Union, but have not received any direct representations on the matter.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that GATT is about free trade and that the future of Welsh farming is about getting Welsh products into markets without any discrimination? In those circumstances, will he make it clear to our German colleagues that there is no evidence to show that any beef from Wales has entered the markets affected by BSE? Indeed, the safeguards that we have put in place prevent that from happening. If the Germans persist in going down that road, will the Welsh Office initiate legal action over unfair trade practice?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and others have pointed that out to the German Government on more than one occasion. Of course, GATT is intended to facilitate the promotion of free trade, and we are likely to do rather well under the agreement in Wales. Welsh lamb is already doing well: one quarter of the lamb exported from this country is Welsh lamb.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prosperity of Welsh agriculture is dependent on the prosperity of its customers? Does he also agree that the GATT agreement will lead to greater prosperity in the world, the United Kingdom and Wales and that it is therefore good for Welsh agriculture?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I fully agree. That is why the GATT agreement was so important for this country: it is designed to increase world trade, and we will benefit from it. In Wales, we stand to gain, and we certainly do not share the NFU's somewhat gloomy view of the prospects. We share the Commission's view, which is far brighter.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: This question may be about GATT and agriculture, but has the Welsh Office studied the effect of GATT on Welsh manufacturing industry, bearing in mind that wages in the far east are much lower—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that his remarks are barely related to the question, which concerns farming and the future of agriculture. Can he do any better?
    Mr. Davies: The Minister mentioned the fact that customers are very important. If Welsh manufacturing industry is destroyed by GATT, there will be no one around to buy the Welsh lamb to which he referred. So —in view of the importance of Welsh manufacturing industry to Welsh agriculture—what studies has the Welsh Office carried out into the effects of GATT on Welsh manufacturing, bearing in mind the difference in wage levels in industry in Wales and the far east?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We certainly stand to gain from the GATT agreement, as I said. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is why the agreement was negotiated and why it was so important for us and for other countries. Any analysis of prospects is inevitably complex because it involves certain anticipations and assumptions about the course of world trade prices in coming years.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I think that the Minister understands that there is widespread apprehension in the Welsh farming community about the GATT agreement signed last week and about future common agricultural policy reform. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that strong environmental and social, as well as economic, reasons exist for maintaining Welsh agriculture? Does he accept that the decline in the traditional family farm and the numbers of young people entering Welsh agriculture are symptoms of the failure of his Government's policy?
    As the green box and the CAP reform compensation measures are exempt from GATT, why does not the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of the fact that his Department is responsible for agriculture, the environment, rural affairs and employment? Using the opportunities presented by his office, why does not he develop a long-term strategy for the future development of the Welsh countryside?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We do, indeed, take advantage of every opportunity afforded to us by the special standing of the Welsh Office and the fact that we are responsible for agriculture, the economy and the environment. It is very much in our own interests and in our mind to devise a secure, long-term future for agriculture, involving support for the environment. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is why we established the Countryside Council for Wales and why we are involved in agri-environmental support. He will also be aware that the hill livestock compensatory allowance and so on exist not simply to offer agricultural support, but for the well-being of the environment.

    Vale Of Glamorgan Unitary Authority
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from people and organisations in the communities of Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick in favour of his proposals to put them in the proposed Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Five since the White Paper, besides representations from the Vale defence committee.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister accept that the fact that there were five responses in favour as compared with more than 100 against, and that 75 per cent. of the residents of the three communities responded to an electoral ballot in which about 85 per cent. said that they wanted to stay with Bridgend, should be enough to persuade the Government to accept the premise of their own White Paper about taking local wishes into account? Does the Minister therefore accept that the three communities of Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick should be allowed, even at this late stage, to have their overwhelming demands to stay with the Bridgend unitary authority met?
    Mr. Jones: I would also mention that we have had substantial representations from the Vale of Glamorgan borough council, Colwinston community council, Llandough community council and Penllyn—essentially, the other members of the family, who are looking forward to being joined by those three communities. The communities will not lose any facilities and I believe will feel at home in a more sympathetic authority that is much more in tune with rural communities.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is considerable support for the Government's proposals in the Vale of Glamorgan and that the Vale of Glamorgan will warmly welcome those three communities? In the light of the comparative records of the different unitary authorities, it is likely that those three communities will benefit from significantly lower council tax charges under a Vale unitary authority.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right about the warm response for those three communities from the Vale of Glamorgan. He is probably also absolutely right when he says that, in future, the residents of those communities will enjoy a lower council tax.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was paid in respect of their duties to board members of non-departmental public bodies appointed by him in 1992–93.
    Mr. Redwood: Board members received £703,934 in 1992–93.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. That figure will undoubtedly rise. Will the right hon. Gentleman be happy for an increasing number of people to be paid for as part of the unelected state when the money could be diverted to provide democratic control of the services in question? Several people are now earning in excess of £50,000 to £60,000. Is the Secretary of State happy with that?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman's attack has backfired on him. I welcome the fact that the Labour party is campaigning, in its new guise, for fewer quangos, but I find that about as credible as the Welsh rugby team saying that they are now teetotal. The Labour party has never opposed quangos in its life—and has usually recommended the establishment of many more. I also reject the idea that the Labour party is putting around that it is my aim to have more people on quango boards than elected councillors. That is quite untrue. It also shows how much scorn the Labour party has for community councils. It has ignored 730 of those as well as miscalculating the figures so as to try to suggest that there are or will soon be more quango members than there are elected councillors. That is also quite untrue.
    I believe that elected people have a strong role to play in our democracy, but local authorities and central Governments of all persuasions from time to time delegate functions to boards of experienced people. We ensure that they are properly monitored and we report back to the House or they report back to their Labour-controlled council chambers.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the clamour on the Opposition Benches against quangos, the Labour party has never once voted against the establishing of a new quango and neither has it indicated that, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government ever being formed, it would wish to abolish any quangos?
    Mr. Redwood: I think that my hon. Friend is right and I look forward to the proposals to abolish quangos. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will send me a little list because we might be able to find that we can do business across the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Llwyd: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Conservative party in north Wales has sunk into fourth place in the race for the European election? In spite of that, does he deplore, as I do, the political statements being made by the chairman of the Gwynedd area health authority, who has suddenly come out in his true colours? Is not it disgraceful that the only qualification that he had to do that job was his affiliation to the party?
    Mr. Redwood: I deny that latter charge and on the former point I look forward to the real poll, because we often find that polls are extremely misleading.
    I was amused that the hon. Gentleman's original question backfired, because it shows that the amount that
    10
    we spend on Welsh quango board members is less than it is said that a single Member of the European Parliament costs.

    Housing
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total level of public expenditure on housing in Wales in 1994–95.
    Mr. Redwood: Government provision for Welsh housing programmes for 1994–95 is set at £634.9 million, an increase of £27 million over the plans for 1993–94.
    Mr. Evans: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House of the proportion of the overall housing budget that is accounted for by housing benefit? Is he happy with that proportion and the growing proportion that goes towards housing benefit? What steps can be taken to ensure that more goes towards new housing provision rather than creating a situation in which many people on low wages find that they may well be priced out of housing association dwellings?
    Mr. Redwood: The best way of tackling that problem is to encourage more jobs and higher incomes because they lift people out of housing benefit. On the supply side, obviously the right answer is to do what the Government are doing, which is to promote actively more housing schemes in suitable places, so that there is sufficient supply to meet the requirements for new family formation. The figures that I gave were figures for the amount of money available for those prime housing programmes of new build and improvement.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that I have presented to his Department a series of petitions calling for investment in aging housing stock? Will he therefore give a generous extra allocation to Alyn and Deeside district council, to enable it to modernise a series of aging council estates? Does he also realise that in cold weather many bedrooms are not habitable for young children, and that young mothers in my constituency are asking for central heating and new windows so that their homes may be fit to live in?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I want to see decent homes and I want to encourage councils to maintain and improve their stock, just as I wish to see a high-quality stock in the private sector and among the housing associations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we work out the amounts of money by a formula that tries to take into account the requirements of each council and I, like him, am impatient to get on with the work. Many homes in Wales have been improved in the past 15 years. More homes need improvement and my hon. Friend can rest assured that money will be made available.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Can the Minister tell me how those people in Wales who are unemployed or in low-paid part-time non-union jobs can purchase a home to start their family life?
    Mr. Redwood: Some will be able to through the low-cost housing for sale programme that I am currently beefing up along with the housing institutions that operate in conjunction with the Welsh Office. It is the best form of tenure. It is so much better for people to reach retirement owning their home, knowing that they do not have to meet

    11
    an increasing rent bill out of their pension and, wherever possible, we encourage them to buy, because that is true social housing. Where that is not possible, we will ensure that there is subsidised housing for rent available or decent housing for rent with housing benefit.

    Primary Schools
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Mr. Redwood: In 1992–93, current expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Wales was £1,590. The equivalent constant price figure for 1978–79 was £1,067. That is an increase of a massive 49 per cent. in real spending per pupil.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show an impressive increase in expenditure for primary school pupils in Wales? Is he satisfied that that increased expenditure is reflected in an improvement in standards?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is right to say that it is a big increase. It reflects generous increases in teachers' wages and decent educational provision in our primary schools. Like him, I want even higher standards, and I am not happy that 28 per cent. of seven-year-olds in primary schools in Wales are achieving only level 1 in arithmetic whereas they should be achieving level 2, which is the right standard for seven-year-olds. That means that we are still letting too many seven-year-olds down and I have asked inspectors to pay attention to teaching methods, to see what succeeds and what does not so that we can spread best practice more widely.

    Visitors
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of visitors to Wales in 1993; and what was the estimated level of expenditure by them.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Figures for 1993 are not yet available, but the most recent figures show that, for Wales as a whole, the volume of domestic business in 1992 amounted to 8.3 million trips by United Kingdom holidaymakers, just over 40 million overnight stays and a total value of £930 million. The volume and value of overseas tourism in 1991 amounted to 0.62 million trips, 4.8 million overnight stays and a total value of £128 million. In addition, day visits accounted for 0.32 million trips with a value of £229 million.
    Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. But when will the 1993 figures be available, given that the last of the 1993 visitors must have gone home by now? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of visitors from outside the United Kingdom is of the greatest importance to Welsh tourism? What steps is the Welsh tourist board taking to increase the number of overseas visitors?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the figures that I gave were somewhat detailed. The figures for 1993 will also be detailed and they therefore
    12
    take a bit of gathering and analysis. On overseas visitors, the tourist board's overseas marketing strategy has identified some 10 countries to be targeted and, once that has happened, we hope that the number of overseas visitors to Wales will increase by about 8 per cent. per annum in the next three years. We shall spend more next year than we spent this year on attracting visitors from overseas.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Minister think that visitors to Wales will be encouraged by the sighting of a stinking asphalt cording plant on Little Garth in the Taff's Well gorge, where most people who go up into the valleys of south Wales start their journeys? Will he do what he can in the Welsh Office to help local authorities to overturn the old development orders that chain them to allowing companies like Redlands to put those unnecessary plants in those beautiful places?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that that matter is being considered by Mid-Glamorgan, which is the planning authority. When I last went up the Taff valley, I looked carefully at the surroundings and I found them most attractive, despite some of the industrial development in the area.

    Lambing
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the effect of the weather upon the 1994 lambing season in upland Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: It is too soon to assess the overall effect of this winter's weather on the lambing season. Lambing is still in progress on many upland farms where the most recent spell of warmer, drier weather should have eased some of the problems.
    Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Given the terrible weather of late March and early April, will he keep an open mind? If it can be shown that this year's losses were higher than could reasonably have been expected—taking into account business risk—will he then consider the possibility of special weather aid payments?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: That is why we have special payments—particularly for upland farmers, who must contend with special problems. Those difficulties are taken into account in the autumn review, after we have considered exactly how problems such as the current ones involving lambing have affected farm incomes.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Attorney-General when he next plans to visit Northern Cyprus to discuss extradition.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. Gapes: Is it not about time that the Government put some serious pressure on the Denktash regime in northern Cyprus, directly and through Turkey, to secure Mr. Asil Nadir's extradition back to this country—or is it true to say that the £440,000 that Mr. Nadir gave the Conservative party is now reaping its rewards?
    The Solicitor-General: The Department of Trade and Industry drew that question to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office at the beginning of its inquiry. Having considered all the issues, the SFO decided to focus its attention on the frauds that are at present before the court.
    I emphasise that the SFO—which is an independent prosecuting authority—made its decisions without reference to Ministers or to the Law Officers. We would welcome any pressure from any quarter that would persuade Mr. Nadir to return to this country and stand trial.
    Mr. Booth: Does not the law of extradition allow any fugitive from justice to surrender voluntarily? In this case, should not every encouragement be given to Asil Nadir —who is currently besmirching the fine island of Cyprus and its fine people—to come back voluntarily and stand trial?
    The Solicitor-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The trial was fixed for last autumn, and Mr. Nadir did not attend; we are anxious that he should make an early return and stand trial.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister tell us whether the Tory party has handed back Asil Nadir's £440,000 gift to anyone?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman must have been distracted: I answered that question a few moments ago.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Attorney-General what steps are being taken to improve the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Serious Fraud Office keeps its working procedures under review with a stocktaking after each case. The Government are also considering important recommendations by the Royal Commission on criminal justice, including the case for more detailed advance disclosure by the defence.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, where possible, defence counsel should give a clear indication of their line of defence at the beginning of trials, in their opening statements, so that juries do not have to wait many months to find out?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has picked up an important point, which was made by the royal commission itself: once the defendant knows precisely what case he must meet, it is right that he should give a sufficient indication of his defence so that the jury knows at the outset what issues are to be tried and to be decided by it, rather than having to wait for many weeks—sometimes months—to find out.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that the problem with the Serious Fraud Office has always been the over-complicated indictments that it prefers? Should it not simplify those indictments, and go for the simple, main criteria of criminality?
    The Attorney-General: The problem that is always faced in such complex cases is to prefer the right charges so as to focus on the true criminality without either over-complicating the issue or so narrowing the focus that
    14
    justice cannot be done. The Serious Fraud Office has made great improvements in recent years in this matter, as its conviction record shows.

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the use of public interest immunity certificates.
    The Attorney-General: Public interest immunity certificates play an important part in the common law system whereby the courts determine the balance between competing public interests.
    Mrs. Roche: If Lord Justice Scott finds that the Attorney-General was wrong to advise Ministers to use public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case, will the Attorney-General resign?
    The Attorney-General: Lord Justice Scott's consideration of these matters involved a serious consideration of common law, on which there is a great deal of judicial authority. For a serious and thoughtful consideration of the matter, I recommend that the hon. Lady reads carefully the evidence before the inquiry, which she will find illuminating.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House on how many occasions in recent years a judge has had to decide which documents that are the subject of a public interest immunity certificate should be disclosed to the defence? Was it on each and every occasion?
    The Attorney-General: Without any doubt, I can tell my hon. Friend that on every occasion when a judge in a criminal case has to decide whether documents that are the subject of a public interest immunity certificate should be disclosed, the judge will read the documents, consider them carefully and then decide. The notion that the system is designed to suppress documents is completely inaccurate.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Attorney-General answer the question that he felt unable to answer earlier? Why was the special nature of the certificate given by the President of the Board of Trade not drawn to the attention of the judge or defence counsel? What steps is he taking to ensure that that sort of lapse does not occur again? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would resign if he was criticised by the Scott inquiry. How many of the Ministers who gave evidence to the inquiry share the Chancellor's view?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The special nature of the certificates signed by the President of the Board of Trade was expressly drawn to the attention of the judge by counsel—it leapt from the page. Nobody reading that specially designed certificate who had any understanding of the subject of public interest immunity could fail to realise that it was a special certificate designed to leave the decision on whether the documents should be disclosed to the defence to the judge.
    Mr. Maclennan: Pending the report of the Scott inquiry, what arrangements has the Attorney-General made to strengthen his position when he has to advise his colleagues so that we do not experience problems in the interim?
    The Attorney-General: I had the benefit of the advice of junior counsel to the Treasury, now a High Court judge, and a leading Queen's counsel, then the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association. My advice was given with great care and with the best possible backing.

    Mr. Anthony Alliss
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the case of the late Mr. Anthony Alliss.
    The Solicitor-General: Two persons charged with the murder of Anthony Alliss were acquitted on the direction of the trial judge at Bristol Crown court on 24 June 1991. After causing extensive inquiries to be made into the conduct of the prosecution, I am entirely satisfied that it was conducted to a high standard.
    Mr. Knapman: I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend cannot comment in detail on individual cases, but he will understand that, in this particular case, we have a body, an unfinished case and therefore no conviction. In the light of those circumstances, one must understand the feelings of the family involved. Will my hon. and learned Friend please try to ensure, however, that those circumstances do not occur again?
    The Solicitor-General: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assiduous way in which he has pursued his constituent's interests in this case, but the trial was conducted by a High Court judge and the Crown was represented by a very experienced leader on the western circuit. After the judge had heard all the evidence, he concluded that it was not fit for the jury to consider. In a case of that sort, that is the end of the matter.

    Public Interest Immunity
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Attorney-General what methods are available to alter the law and procedures for overcoming public interest immunity.
    The Attorney-General: The law and procedures relating to public interest immunity are continually being developed by the courts. It is also open to Parliament to legislate on the subject.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can my right hon. and learned Friend recollect any suggestion from the media or any Opposition party in the past two or three years for a change in the law or the procedures of public interest immunity certificates? If he cannot recollect any such suggestion—I certainly cannot—does not he think that they are merely trying to exploit a situation in which the law has been laid down by judges in court and duly followed?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the law in this sphere is the common law laid down by the high judiciary in the courts. I cannot recall any constructive observation from the Opposition at all.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Non-governmental Organisations
    Mrs. Browning: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Overseas Development Administration has taken to improve dialogue with non-governmental organisations.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The Overseas Development Administration recently helped establish a new network known as the British Non-Governmental Organisations for Development, or by the acronym BOND. We expect this to be an effective mechanism for non-governmental organisations to share information with the Government on how to improve the impact of overseas aid.
    Mrs. Browning: Does my hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of the Corona Society whose members recently accompanied me to see Baroness Chalker and who do an excellent job in many countries? Will my hon. Friend explain to the House how he sees the joint funding scheme helping those organisations which work in very difficult parts of the world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, I am happy to confirm what my hon. Friend says. She is also absolutely right to say that the joint funding scheme is extremely well thought of in the Overseas Development Administration. It has nearly doubled in the past five years and in the current year we plan to increase its funding by 14 per cent.
    Dr. Howells: But has the Minister spoken to the non-governmental organisations Oxfam and Action Aid about the murder of their workers in Rwanda where 100,000 people have been slaughtered in the past two weeks? Why has Britain, which is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, agreed as part of the unanimous decision to reduce the number of peacekeeping troops in Rwanda from 2,700 to 270? Is there one level of compassion for our European friends in Bosnia and another for black Africans?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Every non-governmental organisation employee in Rwanda who wished to be evacuated has been. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is about to answer the next question on precisely that subject.
    Madam Speaker: That is indeed another question, and we shall now move on to it.

    Rwanda And Burundi
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he will take to facilitate humanitarian relief to the victims of the conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Since February 1993, we have provided £12 million of emergency aid to Rwanda and Burundi, including our share of European Community assistance. In the past week, we have committed some £820,000 through British non-governmental organisations for those suffering in the present conflict.
    Mr. Donohoe: That is all very well, but, as my party's Front-Bench spokesman just asked, as the United Nations security force is doing absolutely nothing but is, in fact, withdrawing from an area that requires its assistance, when will the Government put pressure on the United Nations to bring back its troops to prevent further slaughter?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not sure how either hon. Gentleman supposes that maintaining a United Nations force on the original scale will help assuage those horrors. Have not they read the report by the Secretary-General on which the Security Council acted? The Security Council concluded, on the advice of the Secretary-General, that it was no longer possible for that United Nation force to carry out its mandate in the form expected. Therefore, as happened some months ago in Angola in a slightly similar situation, it was decided to run down the force. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no magic in keeping troops there if there is nothing useful that they can do.
    Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to assist the Organisation of African Unity in what has to be in the end a negotiated settlement—preferably negotiated by Rwanda's neighbours? One attempt has been made already to bring the parties together. Will we offer all our experience and assistance to enable that process to begin?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed, the initiative here is with the President of Tanzania. He called for a peace conference on Rwanda in Arusha on Saturday, but it did not take place in the form intended. He is renewing his efforts, and that must be right. The effort must be to bring an end to the fighting. That cannot be achieved, as has been proved, by the United Nations force on the ground. There must be an end to the fighting; in the meanwhile, we shall do all that we can to relieve the human suffering. That is what the Community is doing.

    Uganda
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide aid to reduce the burden of Ugandan debt.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have provided more than £93 million in balance of payments support for Uganda's economic recovery programme since 1987, which has helped to ease the debt-servicing burden. We have also forgiven all Uganda's old aid debt to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that his answer provides further evidence of Britain's excellent record on aid and debt relief to the poorest nations, such as Uganda? Does he also agree that for countries, such as Uganda, which face serious debts to multilateral institutions, similarly enlightened attitudes will be required from other countries, especially Japan?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister was responsible for the Trinidad terms which have given enormous relief to many countries, including Uganda. We very much hope that Japan will join any Paris club consensus for improving the existing terms. I should add that Japan implements the existing Trinidad terms with other creditors and has made clear that it has a commitment to help developing countries.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that Uganda is one of the five poorest countries in the world, how is it logical and justifiable that over the next five years, Uganda will be repaying £200 million to the International Monetary Fund, one of the richest institutions in the world? How can that be justified? If it cannot be justified, what can we do about it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The fact is that Uganda is projected, over the years 1993–94 to 1995–96, to receive US $744 million from the World bank's special programme for Africa.

    European Fund For Development
    Mr. Wells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he is making in making the European Fund for Development more effective.
    Mr. Hurd: We are working with the European Commission to improve the effectiveness of EC development expenditure, with some success so far. In the mid-term review of Lomé IV, we are seeking changes that will also improve effectiveness, notably by directing funds more to those countries that can make best use of them.
    Mr. Wells: Is not it true that the bank is now paying more in overheads than it is disbursing? My right hon. Friend made vigorous representations at the bank board's recent meeting against that practice. When does he expect delivery of the European development fund programmes to exceed expenditure on overheads?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that my hon. Friend and I are on slightly different tracks. I am answering a question about the European fund for development. I think that my hon. Friend is asking me about the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I shall have to answer his question on the running costs of the EBRD at greater leisure.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Enright. Can he get it right? The question concerns the European fund for development.
    Mr. Enright: On the European development fund, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is a very good instrument for converting emergency aid into long-term aid? I think especially of Mozambique. The moment that it gets off the front pages, people stop considering long-term needs. The EDF is well geared to satisfy those needs. I hope that the Government are working along those lines.
    Mr. Hurd: It is certainly true that the EDF shares many of the objectives of our bilateral aid programme. I am very struck by the increase in our commitment to the EDF; it was more than £440 million in 1992–93. It is a very large part of our multilateral aid which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is growing as a proportion of the total. We need to be sure—surer than I am at the moment—that the priorities and effectiveness of the EDF are as great as those in our bilateral aid programme. That is why the mid-term review of Lomé IV is so important.

    Aid Projects
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Overseas Development Administration ensures that all aid projects are assessed for their environmental sustainability.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All projects are subject to environmental assessment according to the guidelines and procedures set out in the Overseas Development Administration manual of environmental appraisal.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he give the House an assurance that the ODA will always
    20
    undertake an environmental sustainability assessment before making a decision on an especial aid project and that, when that has taken place, the decision will be taken with due regard to all factors, including economic factors and the quality of the programme under consideration?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Sustainable development is a central aim of the aid programme in all that it does. Environmental impact assessments are always conducted before any aid project is undertaken. Indeed, I should also add that many aid projects are designed to improve the environment. For example, forestry conservation and management projects improve the environment.

Bosnia
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Bosnia. In response to the continued Bosnian Serb shelling of Gorazde and the horrifying civilian casualties, the United Nations Secretary-General wrote on 18 April to the Secretary-General of NATO, asking Dr. Wörner to obtain as soon as possible a decision of the North Atlantic Council to authorise the use of air strikes at UN request to protect the safe areas, as provided for in Security Council resolution 836.
The shelling of Gorazde continued unabated. The North Atlantic Council met on 20 April and decided that military advice should be sought urgently on the UN Secretary-General's request and that it should meet again on 22 April to take the necessary decisions. Senior Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence officials went to Washington to discuss additional proposals put forward by the United States. The Russian Government were kept informed of developments.
The United Nations Security Council met early on 22 April and passed its resolution 913, which called on the Bosnian Serbs and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to conclude an immediate ceasefire agreement under the auspices of UNPROFOR, condemned the Bosnian Serb shelling of Gorazde and demanded the withdrawal of Bosnian Serb forces to a distance to be agreed by UNPROFOR. The resolution also demanded the immediate release of all UN personnel and unimpeded freedom of movement for UNPROFOR.
When the North Atlantic Council met on 22 April, it authorised Commander-in-Chief, Southern Command, Admiral Smith, to conduct air strikes against Bosnian Serb heavy artillery and other military targets within a radius of 20 km from the centre of Gorazde unless the following occurred: Bosnian Serb attacks on Gorazde ceased immediately; Bosnian Serb forces pulled back 3 km from the centre of Gorazde by one minute past midnight on 24 April; UN forces were free to enter Gorazde; and medical evacuations were permitted.
The NATO Council took a further set of decisions on the same day. It established a military exclusion zone of 20 km around Gorazde, from which all heavy weapons must be withdrawn by one minute past midnight on 27 April—Wednesday morning—or be subject to NATO air strikes. The NATO Council also decided that, if there were an attack by heavy weapons against the other safe area zones of Bihac, Srebrenica, Tuzla or Zepa, from any range, or if, in the judgment of NATO and UN military commanders, there were any threatening movement or concentration of heavy weaponry within 20 km of those areas, they would immediately be designated, individually or collectively, as exclusion zones along the lines of that in Gorazde. If any Bosnian Serb heavy weapons were found in designated military exclusion zones around those safe areas after one minute past midnight on 27 April, they and Bosnian Serb military support facilities would be subject to air strikes. It was agreed—this is a crucial point—that any such attacks would be carried out under the agreed co-ordination procedures with UNPROFOR. So it is a dual-key arrangement between the UN and NATO. Either can propose air strikes; both have to agree.
22
On Saturday 23 April, the Secretary-General's special representative in the former Yugoslavia, Mr. Akashi, reached an agreement with the Bosnian Serb military and civilian authorities, in which a ceasefire was declared around Gorazde with effect from midday on 23 April. It was also agreed that UNPROFOR would deploy a battalion to Gorazde to monitor that ceasefire; that Bosnian Serb heavy weapons would be withdrawn outside a 20 km radius from the centre of Gorazde by midnight on 26 April at the latest; that evacuations would be allowed to proceed; that all UN and humanitarian personnel should have complete freedom of movement; and that negotiations on disengagement should start immediately.
I understand that the Bosnian Serbs are now complying with the terms of that agreement. UNPROFOR deployed a company of Ukrainians, together with a Nordic medical team and 15 military observers, to Gorazde shortly before midnight on 23 April. A further UNPROFOR convoy, comprising a British company from the 1st Duke of Wellington's Regiment and Russian, Egyptian and further Ukrainian elements, arrived in Gorazde yesterday morning.
The evacuation of the wounded is proceeding, supported by British and French helicopters. We have agreed to a request from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to take 50 of the wounded here and we are working closely with UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration on arrangements.
NATO and UNPROFOR remain in close contact. Sarajevo and most of the rest of Bosnia remain relatively calm.
Air strikes are not an end in themselves. We hope that they will not be necessary. But if, in the judgment of NATO and the UN, they are necessary, no one should doubt that they will be undertaken. The first and urgent objective is a lasting ceasefire, first at Gorazde and then more widely in Bosnia. This should in turn lead to a resumption of the peace process, because a negotiated settlement remains the only way to a lasting peace. It has to include a substantial Bosnian Serb withdrawal from territory that they now occupy.
European Foreign Ministers on 18 April and the North Atlantic Council on 22 April reaffirmed their support for that process, welcoming close co-ordination between the European Union, Russia and the United States, with the aim of bringing our diplomatic initiatives more closely together. I have just discussed this with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Churkin, and, after my statement, I am meeting Secretary of State Christopher and the French Foreign Minister Mr. Juppé here in London. This will be an important theme of the Anglo-German summit on Wednesday.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be a broad welcome for the measures that he has set out in his important statement? I welcome the fact that—at last, as many will say—there seems to be a clear political strategy agreed between the United Nations and NATO, set out in specific terms, which is apparently a determination to give real safety and support to the designated safe areas in United Nations resolutions, which were carried a very long time ago. I believe that that, in particular, will be generally welcomed.
Is the Foreign Secretary confident that the confusion that was apparent this weekend between Mr. Manfred

23
Wörner at NATO headquarters, Admiral Smith in Italy and Mr. Akashi in Bosnia will not be repeated? Sadly, there was clearly considerable confusion.
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as I think his statement makes clear, that, although we recognise that air strikes in some circumstances will be regrettably necessary, those strikes will take place only with the agreement of the commanders on the ground in Bosnia and that NATO will not be taking decisions to use air power against the wishes or, literally, over the heads of those responsible for UNPROFOR troops on the ground?
Is the right hon. Gentleman now assured that the discussions that have taken place over the past 72 hours mean that, without any chance of mishap or error, Russia is fully locked into the new United Nations-NATO strategy? Can he assure us that if the Bosnian Serbs do not comply with the deadline of midnight tomorrow, there will be no further hesitation by the United Nations and NATO in taking appropriate action to enforce the decisions that have been made?
In the sad tragedy and calamity of Gorazde, is not the one lesson that we need to learn—one in a long line of lessons to be learned—that if there is indecision, prevarication and confusion by the United Nations and NATO, the people who gain are the Bosnian Serb aggressors while those who lose are not just the Bosnian Muslims, who tragically pay with their lives and many casualties, but the United Nations and NATO because their credibility is further and further undermined?
May I tell the Foreign Secretary—and the Prime Minister—that we wish him well in the discussions later today because we have repeatedly called for that kind of close debate and discussion with our allies to ensure that we can have coherent political objectives in an attempt to resolve this ongoing tragedy in Bosnia?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general support. I confirm what I said earlier, which the right hon. Gentleman repeated, about the need to bring together the NATO effort and the UN effort. There is an air effort being conducted through NATO. It happens to include RAF aircraft. There is also a ground effort conducted through UNPROFOR which includes a substantial force of British soldiers. It is essential that those two should work together. Normally in a military operation, they are all part of the same force. Consultation between them is carried out privately, they reach a common view and agree on a common form of action. That is the history of modern warfare. In this case, the two are under the auspices of different organisations. However, they must work together. That is what the dual key means and that is what happened over the weekend. Obviously, we cannot have a system in which one form of operation is commanded and implemented without regard for what is happening elsewhere.
I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's point about Russia. We are seeking to unify the diplomatic efforts of all those concerned. The Russian effort in this area is positive and we want to ensure that it is fully harnessed and in tune with our own. The House need have no doubt that there might be-hesitations: if, following the expiry of the next deadline at midnight tomorrow, the Bosnian Serbs have not withdrawn from the 20 km zone in accordance with the resolution, there will be no hesitation, using the dual key
24
again in accordance with the situation on the ground, with regard to ordering air strikes if they are necessary for the purpose.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about clarity of purpose. He would not wish to obscure the fact that the working together of NATO and the UN has already produced peace, or something approaching peace, around Sarajevo and peace, or something approaching peace, in large areas of central Bosnia where, even a few weeks ago, there was very fierce fighting. The first effort to achieve that in Gorazde did not succeed and the fighting continued. At the end of the day, fighting continues until those who are fighting are persuaded or forced to do otherwise. In the right hon. Gentleman's natural concern, which we all share in respect of Gorazde, let him not obscure what has been achieved hitherto.
Sir Cranley Onslow: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and draw some encouragement from it. However, is the UN aware of the identity of the Bosnian Serb commanders who were responsible for attacks on innocent civilians in that designated safe area, particularly on targets such as the hospital in Gorazde? Is there any chance that those men will ultimately be brought to trial for the murders that they have committed?
Mr. Hurd: I share my right hon. Friend's feelings about that. Of course, part of the effort must be to identify individual commanders and others who are responsible and who should be brought to trial for those atrocities within the terms of the resolutions that the UN Security Council has already passed.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Has not the unsatisfactory nature of the dual key system been demonstrated over the past 48 hours when General Rose apparently asked for air strikes, but was denied them? Once the decision in principle is taken, should not the decision in practice rest exclusively with the commander on the ground? When the right hon. Gentleman sees the United States Secretary of State this afternoon, will he convey to him the anxiety that many people feel about the apparently contradictory statements coming out of the US Administration over Bosnia, and remind him that the success of Sarajevo and the Croat-Muslim peace, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is attributable to the military and diplomatic leadership of the United States?
Mr. Hurd: I would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman not to take seriously every anecdote that he reads about who asked for what and when. He will agree that the dual key is essential. We cannot have a situation in which those who are responsible on the ground find that those who are responsible in the air are doing something without regard to their own information or their own interests, or vice-versa. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong. As I said, I would not pay too much credence to such anecdotes.
The fact is that the dual key is essential. It means that there must be constant consultation between Commanderin-Chief South, Admiral Smith, and the UN, which is Mr. Akashi, General de la Presle and General Rose. That is happening.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right about the crucial role of the United States. Like him, I give it credit for the big advance that was achieved between the

25
Muslims and the Croats. I am sure that the conversations that I shall have, and the Prime Minister will have, with Warren Christopher this afternoon will carry that forward.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the international community had continued to speak with a single voice after Sarajevo, the tragedy of Gorazde would probably have been avoided? Will he now promise the House that there will be no more talk of even handedness between the victim and the aggressor and that, the aggressor having been clearly identified and an ultimatum given, threats will be carried out? Will he further confirm that we are dealing not with warring factions but with a recognised sovereign state and a Government who are multi-ethnic and whom we should support against the aggression from Serbia and the Serbs within Bosnia?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's definition of the role of the UN is not that on which our soldiers are engaged, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has frequently made clear. The aim of the Security Council resolutions and the North Atlantic Council decision, which I have reported to the House, is very specific. The Bosnian Serbs should be in no doubt about our willingness to use both sets of decisions for the purposes named. We will not be involved in fighting on one side of the conflict or the other, and that has been made clear time and again. We have specific objectives which we believe are necessary and justified for the international community.
The conflict will not be brought to an end by military intervention from outside. Military intervention on the ground can help the humanitarian effort and it can help to protect safe areas, as can air intervention. That has been proved and agreed. However, all those concerned, whether they are Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, or adherents to the Bosnian Government, need to understand—I am sure that they do understand—that, at the end of the day, this horror can be brought to an end only by a negotiated settlement, which is why the new set of diplomatic initiatives is under way.
Mr. James Molyneaux: While any reduction in the killing and suffering must be welcomed, is the Foreign Secretary aware that, in Washington, as I discovered last week, there is much support for the view expressed by Lord Healey that the United Nations is in breach of its charter when it interferes in the internal affairs of any member state? Is it not understandable, then, that there should be some confusion about the role of NATO, and should not these matters be examined in detail?
Mr. Hurd: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his visit to the United States. I am not sure that this subject was at the top of his agenda, but I gather that his visit went well and I am glad of that. The Security Council and, indeed, the whole of the United Nations have wrestled for years with the problem of what to do when an unacceptable situation arises essentially within a member state.
In this case, there is fighting between three communities in a member state, which undoubtedly originated there and has been egged on, in particular from Belgrade. The Security Council has resolved that dilemma in a way that takes the shape of many of its resolutions, and that is right.
I do not think that we can leave the matter alone and say
26
that it is essentially within a member state and we should not have anything to do with it, because there has been outside interference. Nor, however, can we suppose that the UN by itself will be able to impose peace with justice, as opposed to helping those concerned towards a negotiated peace.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the twin policies of the provision of humanitarian aid and the protection of safe areas are incompatible, and that that has lain at the root of the problems in recent days? Will he explain how the new dual key arrangements which he has announced will overcome that incompatibility?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that they are incompatible. If my hon. Friend went to Vitez, Maglaj, Mostar or Sarajevo, he would see how they are working together. The airlift to Sarajevo has been resumed and supplies are getting in, and that is as a result of Sarajevo being effectively a safe area. That, in turn, is a result of the efforts of NATO and the UN.
The two objectives that my hon. Friend mentions are working together throughout large parts of Bosnia. They have not worked together in Gorazde, and it is important that they should work together where they can. That is why the decisions that I have reported to the House were taken.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the frustrations that exists in the west, this House and Britain generally about concluding the war is that people tend to believe that the quick effort in the Gulf can be repeated almost everywhere? Does he also agree that the situation in Yugoslavia should be compared with Vietnam, rather than the Gulf, in terms of trying to get a clean, quick finish?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that if we sent a proportionate amount of British troops to the other 27 civil wars throughout the world as have gone to Bosnia and elsewhere, everybody up to the age of 40—probably including Portillo and all the rest of them—would have to be wearing uniforms? Would not the royal family—who are commanders-in-chief of this, that and the other regiment—have to do a bit of fighting as well? Is not this problem ten times more difficult than that experienced in the Gulf?
Mr. Hurd: I thought that the hon. Gentleman started excellently, but he spoiled it totally by the end. His first point is right. Comparisons made between situations are almost always wrong. The worst tragedy in the world in terms of the quantity of suffering is the one on which I answered a question about a quarter of an hour ago—Rwanda.
We do not have a new world order. We have a traditional set of world disorders and we are trying, case by case and institution by institution, to equip ourselves to deal more adequately with those disorders. Each one is different, and the effort that the outside world can make to help solve each one will differ also.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend's statement clarified certain issues that had not appeared to interlink properly in the past few days. Is he satisfied that the Serbs in Bosnia understand the meaning of deterrence, which is that we will strike if we say we will? We should not fall into a difference of opinion between two separate

27
organisations. Is not that absolutely critical if NATO is to carry out the UN instructions and prevent Serbian aggression against the safe areas?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bosnian Serbs do understand that. If they did not, they would not have acted around Sarajevo as they did some weeks ago, or as they have acted around Gorazde in the past few hours. I do not say that their understanding is complete, and we must ram it home on all occasions. That is what I am trying to do today. Certainly, their actions begin to show that they have some understanding of that reality.
Mr. Frank Field: As one who has been critical in the past of the Government's stance, may I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today. Does he accept that in the 1930s, when the Jews in Germany and Poland and surrounding territories were being exterminated, most people in Europe could claim that they knew nothing of what was going on, but that no one has that defence today? Therefore, is not his statement about dual key control and how it will work of crucial importance? In the past 24 hours, has General Rose asked for air power?
Mr. Hurd: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should not listen to all the anecdotes in the newspapers. In the past 24 hours, according to my understanding, General Rose has not on any occasion asked for air strikes and been denied them. The position is that there has been discussion on several occasions between the Commander-in-Chief South, Admiral Smith, and General de la Presle, Mr. Akashi and General Rose through the various channels.
There is no doubt about two things. First, up to now it has been the view through the dual key procedure that air strikes would not have helped the process on the ground, which was developing in a helpful way, as I have described to the House.
The hon. Gentleman said that people were dying. Indeed, that is true, but does he think that the medevac —the evacuation from the hospital that he saw on television last night—would have occurred if there had been air strikes? Those are the balances that one has to strike in real life. That is the responsibility that we have put on the NATO and UN commanders. My point has been that they have to exercise those responsibilities together. That is what they are doing.
Secondly, it is clear from what Mr. Akashi says and Secretary-General Wörner says that there should be no doubt in the minds of the Serbs that if they do not comply with the second part of the NATO decision, as they are complying with the first part, they will be at risk of the air strikes which are authorised by that decision.
Mr. Nigel Forman: My right hon. Friend said earlier that a durable peace in war-torn Bosnia would come about only as a result of a negotiated settlement, presumably directly between the parties. Is he optimistic or pessimistic about the pressure that could be exerted by effective economic sanctions? I seem to remember that sanctions are in force. I wonder whether they are proving effective in bringing, particularly, the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table.
Mr. Hurd: I believe, and the information that we have suggests, that sanctions have achieved a considerable change in the attitude of President Milosevic and the
28
Government in Belgrade. What is in doubt is the chain of influence from Belgrade, through Pale and Mr. Karadzic, to General Mladic and the Bosnian Serb commanders. From time to time, that influence is exerted. From time to time, it does not seem to exist. There is no doubt that sanctions are an effective pressure on Serbia-Montenegro and we and our allies intend fully to maintain them until we see clearly that the resolutions of the Security Council are being applied.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary state clearly what views the British Government have expressed to the United States in the past few days? Is not it about time that we told President Clinton that we would take his advice more seriously if he were prepared actively to argue for American troops on the ground who could be subject to the bombing by American aircraft that his military commanders advocate? Is not it about time that we told those carping and whining voices in the American Congress that some of us in Europe are getting fed up with getting advice and condemnation when they are not prepared to put their people's lives at risk?
Mr. Hurd: I have certainly heard sound bites, which may not have been typical, from American Senators and Congressmen, that seemed to leave out of account entirely the fact that some of their European allies, including Britain and France, have substantial commitments on the ground and troops who are doing a good job. President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher understand the position well and have expressed it well. In the past few days, we worked out with the United States professionally, through the work of the officials whom I have mentioned, details that helped to lead to the NATO Council resolution. Others were at work, too. On the diplomatic side, we now have to work with them, the Russians and fellow Europeans to unify the peace process and the diplomatic efforts that we are now making.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend remain extremely cautious about getting UNPROFOR and its large British contingent further embroiled in this treacherous and perilous Bosnian bog? Does he recognise the military reality that safe areas can be protected from a determined assault only by dug-in infantrymen supported by tanks and artillery, which is well beyond the capacity of UNPROFOR? Finally, will he have another look at what happened to the multinational force that was dispatched to Beirut in the 1980s because it was felt that there was a need to do something? Does he remember that it was finally withdrawn after 200 US marines needlessly lost their lives?
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I are, and have been throughout, very cautious on the subject of British military involvement in Bosnia. We know well the risks of being drawn step by step into a war to which, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), we are not a party and in which the usefulness of military action from outside is limited. We have defined at each stage what we think can usefully be done and have helped to organise a United Nations force and a British contribution to it accordingly. The last step, which I just reported to the House, was worked out in substantial detail

29
by the military authorities in NATO, drawing on the experiences and views of UNPROFOR and of member states. That much I can say.
Parallels—whether with Vietnam, Beirut or other areas —can shed some light, but the differences are greater than the similarities. We are well aware of the risks. I do not believe in all or nothing or that if one cannot do everything, one should do nothing. What we have done diplomatically and militarily in Bosnia fits the needs of the situation and what, in practice, forces from outside countries and institutions can do to help.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that between 700 and 2,000 people have lost their lives within 700 miles of London since he came to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on the matter only a few days ago? Many lives have been lost. Will he also confirm that several thousand people have been injured since he last answered questions at the Dispatch Box? Is he really convinced that, in the past seven days, the Government have done everything possible to avoid the terror in that city in Yugoslavia?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, I believe that—within the time that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—we have. If he seriously supposes that summoning massive air strikes on the Serbs around Gorazde would have averted the killing, he is mistaken.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You have done nothing. Clinton pushed you.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, as he has been in many interventions. We have worked together on something that has never happened before in history—the United Nations and NATO working together to extend international activity in Bosnia. The hon. Gentleman is leaving out of the account what has been achieved in Bosnia and the lives that would have been lost if we had not taken those earlier decisions on Sarajevo, in central Bosnia. For heaven's sake, let us recognise what has been achieved and act energetically to improve and build on it. The hon. Gentleman's line of questioning does no one any good.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I welcome the Foreign Secretary's announcement that all six secure zones in Bosnia will be defended by air? Can he estimate what additional troops will be required in each secure zone to ensure that they are safe and that they are not used as a base for military activity against those attacking the towns?
Mr. Hurd: I cannot give figures for each safe area. That is not my responsibility, but my hon. Friend knows of the efforts that we have made—greater efforts, I think, than those of any other country—to increase the resources available to UNPROFOR. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave some figures last week. I can update them.
As a result of our efforts, the UN has received firm offers from member states of about 7,700 additional troops. It has asked those states to proceed with the deployment of about 5,700 of those troops. The deployment of further troops, on top of the ceiling of 5,800 authorised by the UN, will depend on a further resolution
30
and that, in turn, depends on financial resources—on everyone making available what is needed to finance those troops.
I see a continuing need for increased UNPROFOR forces in the safe areas and in implementing ceasefires, such as the one now obtaining in central Bosnia. That means not just more men—we have been very active not just in providing more men but in getting others to do so —but the finances to keep them going.
Ms Angela Eagle: Can the Foreign Secretary enlighten me a bit more about the working of the dual key system? Can he confirm to the House that in the run-up to the recent threats and ultimatums, at no stage did General Rose ask for air strikes and be refused them?
Mr. Hurd: I answered an earlier question and I am not going into the details—I do not know all of them—of transactions between the UN commanders and NATO. Those transactions occur every day; suggestions are made, discussed and resolved. What I do know is the procedure, which is essential.
Mr. Frank Field: What is the answer?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady asked for elucidation about the dual key and I am giving it to her. It means that where one has an air effort and a ground effort, they should be in harmony. Where it is suggested by the UN that there might be an air strike, it is for NATO to agree that it should take place and agree on the targeting. Where NATO believes that an air strike might be justified, for example, because it has seen some results of aerial reconnaissance, it is essential that the UN, which has the information on the ground, should also agree. That seems to be entire common sense. It is the system which has operated in Sarajevo and it is the system which is now operating in Gorazde, because it was confirmed by the NATO Council last week.
Mr. Winston Churchill: I welcome the UN's new-found resolve in respect of Bosnia and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the personal part that he has played in recent days to help to bring that about. Given the ragged track record of the UN thus far in terms of threats made and threats actually delivered, and the number of times that the UN's bluff has been so blatantly called, can my right hon. Friend give the House the assurance that he and the Government will do all in their power, given the new-found international resolve, to ensure that the UN's bluff is no longer called?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general remarks, but no bluff was called in Sarajevo. The Bosnian Serbs realised that and acted accordingly. In Gorazde, there was no bluff, because close air support was provided last week, but it did not produce the result expected. That is why NATO has taken the decisions that my hon. Friend supports. I am glad to assure him and, indeed, the Bosnian Serbs and anyone else who may be listening that there is no question of unwillingness by the members of NATO to carry out air strikes on the lines of, and under, the procedures that the NATO Council established last week.
Mr. Max Madden: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us why the British Government seem so terrified of holding a debate in Government time on Bosnia? Could it be that statements are a convenient way of throwing crumbs of information to the House, and

31
enable the Foreign Secretary to refuse to answer whether General Rose has been refused requests for bombing over the past 48 hours, as opposed to the past 24 hours? Their use also denies critics of Government policy a proper opportunity to explain their case.
Mr. Hurd: I should be delighted to have a debate, because that would be a much less difficult exercise for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself than the repeated statements with which we seek to keep the House informed. It is a matter for the usual channels, not for me, but the idea that either my right hon. and learned Friend or I are shrinking from a debate is very far from the truth.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In spite of the potential frustrations involved and in spite of the inherent difficulty in evolving appropriate rules of engagement, can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no alternative to a dual key authority for the effective use of air power in the theatre? Can he say what measures are available to the UN and NATO as the instrument of deterrence for the UN in what was Yugoslavia, to prevent the Serbs from extending their influence by offensive operations outside the six safe areas?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful that my hon. Friend, with his experience of those operational matters, supports the dual key as essential. He is entirely right about that.
We are not saying—the international community would be very unwise to say—that we are able to deter all Serb or, indeed, Croat or Muslim offensive activity outside the safe areas. We are not purporting to do that and that is one reason why a return to the negotiating table and, ultimately, a successful negotiation is the only way of ending all those dangers.
Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman's statement refers to United Nations Security Council resolution 913, which re-affirms the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. What will be the response of the United Nations and NATO if the Serbs attempt not to bombard another safe area, but to annex further territory along the River Sava, for example? It is not a safe area, but it is part of an independent state. What will NATO and the UN do?
Mr. Hurd: Of course it is part of an independent state and the Bosnian Serbs are a community in that state. That is the nature of the conflict. That is why, as the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, comparisons with the Gulf and other such dramas are inexact. This is a civil war, to a large extent inspired and egged on from outside.
The Muslims have been gaining ground in some parts of Bosnia, the Serbs in other parts and there is a fragile truce between the Croats and the Muslims. All those facts might change. The UN Security Council set out certain areas and has tried to protect them ever since. That is a limited objective. It would be unwise to pretend, as I have just said, that that protection extends everywhere. It does not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Education and Upbringing
4.12 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising one generation's responsibility for the next and the critical importance of young people's development to a stable, healthy and well-ordered society, calls on the Government to continue to encourage a wide diversity of choice in schooling, greater priority for the needs of children within the family and resistance to harmful influences to which they are exposed in the media and elsewhere.
When it comes to private Members' motions and the chance to initiate a Commons debate, fortune has smiled on me, not once, not twice, but no fewer than five times during my time in the House, and has half-smiled on me on two further occasions, when I came third. In all that time, however, not once has my name come out in the top 20 in the ballot for private Members' Bills, so lady luck has so far denied me the opportunity of making a permanent mark on Parliament by seeing some minor measure on to the statute book and generations of lawyers to come will be spared the need to remember my name. Although, in that sense, second best, private Members' debates are a valuable means of mentioning issues of importance that are too often crowded out by the legislative programme.
My motion sets out to provide a fretwork for discussion to which others can contribute and fill in the gaps.
My contribution will take several themes. Some are hobby horses, but I hope that I shall not appear to gallop off in all directions. The disparate issues have a common thread—a concern for the moral and social integrity of our people and the welfare of our children. That concern is touched by three aspects of education, two of which arise in my constituency of Romford: a deeper, long-standing apprehension about the future of the family and the subversion of our traditional way of life; and the menace of violent videos and other vicious influences in the media and elsewhere.
First, on education, the Government deserve credit for the courage of their reforms of the state education system —and not before time. Too many children have left the system with not a university degree but a degree of illiteracy and innumeracy that has handicapped them for life. The vested interests have fought like tigers for their cubs but, by responding to genuine grievance while pursuing the principle, the Government are achieving continuing progress and improvement. Especially welcome is the widening variety of provision. Education needs to conform not to some universal nostrum but to the abilities and aptitudes of individual children.
Choice has rightly become the watchword for parents. All the evidence shows growing interest in the exercise of choice. The increasing amount of published information is a necessary corollary to parental choice at all stages. One option for parents which I strongly support is single-sex education. There are two single-sex schools in the London borough of Havering: the Royal Liberty school for boys and the Frances Bardsley school for Girls. Both are in my constituency and regularly oversubscribed. Some of their popularity is undoubtedly due to their reputation for plain and simple schooling, but single-sex education is an important—if not all-important—consideration in some parents' choice. In recent years, a number have been disappointed and, because the schools are both in Romford, those who are my constituents have felt particularly aggrieved.

33
Moreover, in some cases parents who have given a single-sex school as their first preference have seen, through the system of selection, their children denied places and the places taken by children whose parents' first choice was a mixed school. The council has agreed to extend the allocation for single-sex preference by a small degree, but that element remains under-provided.
That represents a powerful argument in favour of the outstanding application for Frances Bardsley to retain its sixth form. When post-16 education in the borough was reorganised some years ago and plans were agreed for a sixth-form college, Frances Bardsley, along with other schools under full local authority control, was required to relinquish its sixth-form, but managed to negotiate a temporary reprieve. Now that the sixth-form college is full to overflowing, as a result—again, credit is due to the Government—of the surge of children staying on after 16, which is long overdue in our part of London, Frances Bardsley is, very reasonably, asking for its sixth form to be made permanent. That will be to the great benefit of the girls in the school. The juniors will have more mature girls at the head of the school and the sixth-formers will be free and undistracted by male adolescents to work towards the outstanding and exceptional results obtained by many single-sex schools last summer.
The Establishment is opposed to that, clinging to its grand plan, despite the change of circumstances, and fully prepared to spend more public money by providing extra accommodation when the existing facilities are already available and in use at Frances Bardsley. The parents, however, fully support the governors and staff in their bid, and backed them by voting for grant-maintained status, which they achieved a year ago. It would be a serious rebuff to them if they were denied their sixth form now, and a blow to the principle of single-sex education at sixth form level—an experience from which I benefited but not, I hasten to add, at a girls' school. At an earlier age in the course of my chequered education, however, I attended two girls' schools—[Interruption.]—as a pupil.
Given the Secretary of State's acknowledgement of the merits of traditional school sixth forms earlier this year, I have high hopes of a favourable decision in that case.
One of the three subjects that I took at A-level was English literature, which is indisputably one of the greatest literatures in the world and a priceless heritage for us all. No wonder parents complained about a text used for English studies at GCSE level at another school in my constituency, St. Edward's—a so-called poem entitled "Stobhill". Not only was the sole resemblance to poetry in the varying lengths of the printed lines; the subject matter was gang rape and the incineration of an aborted foetus. This, apparently, is our young teenagers' inheritance today.
When taxed with the matter, the headmaster was unrepentant in his defence. The chairman of governors, deputy headmaster in a neighbouring London borough, supported him to the hilt. The parents who complained proved to be a small minority. The Archbishop of Canterbury—and this, believe it or not, is a Church of England school—having referred to a mother's "very understandable worries", did not wish to interfere, believing that how something is taught makes a crucial difference over and above its objective content. Only the Minister of State, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch, was prepared to describe the choice of text as "most regrettable". Amen to that.
That experience brought me up with a jolt: it made me
34
realise just how far things had gone. Another text used is a poem about a boy's killing of his cat by shutting it in the door. It includes the words:
"The black fur squealed and he felt his skin Prickle with sparks of dry delight."
The boy killers of James Bulger probably felt the same sensation.
What chance do today's young people have when even school allows them no refuge from such squalor? What kind of society can it be in which parents, teachers, school governors and an archbishop can persuade themselves that gang rape is a suitable and entirely appropriate subject for school children to study—and in the name of English literature?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: At a Church of England school.
Sir Michael Neubert: Yes, at a Church of England school.
That is why I welcomed the news, in March, that the reading list of mainly classic authors would be retained in the revised national curriculum, despite the opposition of leading English teachers. The council of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority agreed unanimously to overturn the recommendation of its own advisers that teachers should be free to choose the writers and works that pupils study.
I admire the council's pluck—one up for political incorrectness. It must have had its work cut out. Unfortunately, teachers can no longer be trusted to exercise discretion, because too many of them have been tutored in the progressive thinking that has prevailed since the permissive 1960s. The headmaster's defence was that, according to the latest figures, there were 69 teenage pregnancies per 1,000, and the abortion rate for girls aged 11 to 16 in 1991 was 2.2 per 1,000 2.8 in our area. What does he expect? If young people are saturated with sex, they will think of little else. An English lesson is a chance to show them that there are other things in life.
Nor should we overlook the element of political motivation in what has been happening in our schools. Nowadays, it is out in the open. Terry Eagleton, Warton professor of English literature at Oxford university—who has described himself as a "shamelessly unreconstructed Marxist", and who persuaded more than 500 academics, including 20 other university professors, to support a letter that he wrote to The Times Higher Education Supplement —believes that language is fascist, grammar an instrument of oppression wielded by the bourgeoisie against the working class and the horror film "Nightmare on Elm Street" every bit as worthy of study as "A Midsummer Night's Dream". He also believes that correcting children's speech is seriously harmful to their self-esteem.
Consciously or unconsciously, many teachers are helping to bring about the triumph of the left in education by absorbing such ideas and putting them into practice in the classroom. Part of "Stobhill" is in raw Scots dialect. There may be a case for advanced students to study such texts, but when the general level of literacy is causing so much concern, secondary school children studying modern authors would be better served by works written in standard English.
Children are the casualties of this ideological warfare. It is they who are being sent out into an increasingly

35
competitive world—into a hostile environment where more than 20 million people are unemployed in Europe, 35 per cent. of whom have never had a job.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that children whose spelling, grammar and knowledge are not corrected at school are strongly disadvantaged as adults? Is he aware of a document on the subject of crime that is being circulated in my constituency this week? I have a copy with me. The spelling of the word "neighbourhood", as in "neighbourhood watch", begins "neib" in one instance and "neirb" in another; the word "scheme" is spelt "sceme", and the spelling of "prevention", as in "crime prevention", begins "pro". Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat councillors who circulated the document would have benefited from testing in schools?
Sir Michael Neubert: My hon. Friend's comments will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is representing the Liberals today and who is familiar with the document. I was not aware how closely illiteracy and Liberalism in the south-west were connected. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) would do better to elect better trained and Conservative candidates in the council elections next week.
Mr. Win Griffiths: While we are on the subject of spelling mistakes and grammar, may I point out that on one infamous occasion the Secretary of State for Wales issued a statement containing four spelling mistakes and at least three grammatical errors? When it was marked by an English teacher, the right hon. Gentleman was given the thumbs down in terms of GCSE grading.
Sir Michael Neubert: That does not surprise me either. I have had the good fortune of serving as a Minister in Her Majesty's Government. During that time I, too, was disappointed and disillusioned by the standard of spelling among the civil servants who prepared briefs and press statements for me. I will not blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales without further inquiry: it may be that he has delegated too far and unwisely.
Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) that the spelling was incorrect and that it was a great pity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to investigate the spelling of the word "grammar" as in grammar school. I could tell him an interesting story involving the use of that word. He will recall that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has used the following three phrases in recent months:
"Myself and Emily Blatch have been all around the country",
"me and my inspectors have been to hundreds of schools",
and
"just the kind of thing that me as a parent".
Sir Michael Neubert: I would do better to await the more lengthy speech of the hon. Gentleman than to listen to examples of misspellings. I am sure that we could all produce our favourite examples and argue them for rather longer than we have available this afternoon, although I should be the last person to diminish the importance of spelling: I have always believed it to be an important grounding for life, and I still do so.
Mr. Bob Dunn: With regard to presentation and communication, if people do not care how they spell or how they present their ideas, are they likely to care about the policies that they wish to present? All hon. Members know that Liberal Democrats say one thing here and another in their constituencies, one thing in the council chamber and another at the council ward, one thing in one village and another thing in another village, and one thing in one street and a different thing in the next street.
Sir Michael Neubert: All Conservative Members have experience of that.
To return to the subject of children, who are so often casualties of ideological warfare, if they are not to join the 20 million unemployed in Europe they must not leave school unable to express themselves competently in their own language, unable to make simple calculations in their heads and with their sensibilities brutalised by squalor. I call on the Secretary of State, when he makes his decision on the curriculum later this year to range himself with the traditionalists and me—I think I use the word "me" correctly there—and my noble Friend Lady Blatch in agreeing that the sort of material that I have described is wholly inappropriate and that the study of English, to quote Lady Blatch,
"is best advanced through an emphasis on the tried and tested works of real distinction".
On the wider question of the level of attainment achieved by our school leavers, I again commend the Government for their dogged pursuit of the principle of testing. It has long been clear to me that teachers object to testing often because tests are a test of them as well as of their pupils. However, it is imperative that there is a system of interim tests to check on progress, because leaving it to the final year examinations is too late—by then, any damage done can rarely be remedied in later life.
There are few second chances in education, which is why I regret the continuing opposition of the National Union of Teachers to testing. To judge from its much televised conference over the Easter weekend, it seems to have been hijacked by the hard left. Its position is neither honourable nor responsible. The Government have gone to considerable lengths to meet genuine grievances in introducing the system. The time has now come for all those involved to unite in making the system a success for the sake of children. Lest it be thought that my comments are unduly critical of teachers, I should mention that at the start of my career I did some teaching and am a certificated teacher. That experience left me with the highest regard for the dedication and vocation of the vast majority of teachers, but the welfare of the next generation is too important for me not to say what I think now.
The greatest threat to the welfare of children is the breakdown of the traditional family on which the structure of our society is founded. Let us consider some facts taken from an information sheet prepared by the Maranatha community as evidence of what it calls the "gathering storm clouds". The number of divorces has doubled since 1971; the United Kingdom has the second highest divorce rate in Europe, Denmark having the highest which, similarly, has the highest number of women in work, the United Kingdom coming second; marriage breakdown is now six times higher than in 1961; there was a 400 per cent. increase in births outside marriage between 1971 and 1991; eight in 10 births to women under the age of 20 are outside marriage, or are what used to be called illegitimate;

37
2 million children are being raised in single-parent families; one in five children conceived in the United Kingdom is aborted and 3.5 million abortions were carried out in England and Wales between 1968 and 1991. If children had a choice, how many would choose to be born into a world such as this?
The consequences of those figures are too numerous to detail, but we are all well aware of them. Every day, the newspapers bring news of some new enormity: increasing violence, spiralling social security expenditure, rising crime and drug addiction and widespread alcoholism which all mean a greater burden on the health service. Children are frequently the victims of such problems.
We have allowed our traditional way of life to be subverted and we are paying a terrible price for it. We must reassert our support for the family and devise and direct our policies to that end. We cannot afford to do otherwise—the creaking platform of public expenditure is on the point of collapse. Parts of our cities are not only nuclear-free zones but are rapidly becoming nuclear family-free zones.
Support for lone parents had risen to £5 billion a year before the Government took the decisive step to set up the Child Support Agency. Parents must be made to accept responsibility for their children and for their own future. Those who separate or who refuse to commit themselves to marriage should not look to the rest of us for support in their later years. Independence and irresponsibility now may be at the expense of loneliness and deprivation in years to come. Partnerships and relationships may prove to be the ultimate 20th century tragedy.
Among some of the worst influences to which young people are exposed are the violent images on video and television and in the cinema. The growth of violence is unquestionably one of the most alarming developments of recent years because it is so often pointless, unpredictable and inexplicable. There can be no ultimate protection for any of us against it but, for years, trendy opinion held that there was no connection between violent images and violent action. Now, at last, the academics have finally realised what common sense led the rest of us to conclude from the start—there is a connection.
The House did itself some credit two weeks ago by insisting on tougher curbs on video nasties. A few days later, a survey by the Professional Association of Teachers confirmed the widespread circulation of violent and pornographic videos among children of even primary school age. The horrific film "Silence of the Lambs" was one eight-year-old girl's favourite Christmas holiday film. One wonders who and where her parents are; one would be interested to meet them.
The potency of visual images on the television screen threatens to mar the life of every young child. A photograph published in The Sunday Telegraph after our debate illustrated that point with stark clarity. It depicted a baby in its high chair which had been placed within two feet of a 24-inch television set, head-on to the screen. He was looking at the screen in bemusement while the mother sat smoking a cigarette and watching him. In that way, we create a nation of zombies. The phenomenal power of television is barely constrained and rarely accountable. If parents use television and video as previous generations used the dummy, selfishly shrugging off their own responsibilities for looking after their children, we are lost.
"Only connect", said the communications guru Marshall McLuhan in the 1960s. "Only corrupt" might be the motto now. It is no surprise, given its all-pervasive,
38
all-powerful influence, that television is the favoured medium for those who seek to undermine our traditional way of life. Channel 4 is currently doing its best. Its gay Christmas has been followed by a lesbian spring. To give the flavour of what was on offer at Christmas, apart from a queen's speech by Quentin Crisp, there was an episode, caught by one of my constituents switching channels, which showed a man drinking his mistress's urine. Whether it was out of a tumbler or straight from the woman's orifice, I have not yet summoned up the strength to ask. Either way, it does not seem likely to have been a high point in western civilisation. Other programmes promised visits to strip joints and public urinals. In "The Greatest F Show on Earth", a comic argued for more bad language on television.
When challenged, Channel 4's defence is that it is required by its remit to offer programmes that are an alternative to those on the other channels. To that, I say that necrophilia may have its adherents, but that does not seem a reason for it to be shown on the screen in a living room. A second defence, echoed by the Independent Television Commission, is that such programmes represent only a small proportion of the hours transmitted. The question is whether such material should be transmitted at all. The argument is on a par with the Punch cartoon in which the unmarried housemaid confesses to an illegitimate baby, but says that it is only a very small one.
Let us be clear that programming of that character, which flouts all standards of decency, taste and discretion, does not come about by chance. Programme-makers are constantly seeking to extend the limits of what they can get away with. The examples that I have given are a deliberate and direct assault on three of our major institutions: the monarchy, the Christian Church and the family. We cannot allow the subversives to win. That means, among other things, that we cannot be all things to all men and all women, and all things in between.
There is no doubt that political motivation is one mainspring. Conservatives should wake up. After being rejected at the ballot box by the British people in four successive general elections, the left has been left to penetrate our defences from underground. Anything that undermines our traditional way of life is likely to sap our political strength at the same time. We should, therefore, especially beware egalitarianism masquerading as equality and the fallacy—perhaps spelt with a "ph"—that women are the same as men.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as I missed the first few minutes of his speech. He and I taught at the same institution, although at different times. He will know that in that institution, a great deal was done through school assembly and religious instruction to inculcate values by which children could live in later life. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the report late last week that the National Association of Head Teachers seemed to question what could be achieved through school assemblies?
Sir Michael Neubert: Yes, I share that concern. One of the reassurances today is that, if he is successful in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) may touch on this subject in his own speech.
I was talking about the role that women have to play in the world; I defy the fallacy that women are the same as

39
men. In the uniquely precious responsibility of creating and nurturing children, men and women have different but indispensable roles. Children need two responsible parents, preferably their own.
The motion calls for
"a stable, healthy and well-ordered society".
To achieve that, we shall need to give greater emphasis to discipline, respect for authority, consideration of others and, above all, the integrity of family life. There is a phrase for it: "Forward to fundamentals".
4.39 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on managing, at last, to obtain such a high-profile position for a private Member's motion and on the serious and important subject that he has chosen to introduce. Probably, I would heartily concur with more than three quarters of what he said, and I hope that I shall be able to explain where I felt that he was not hitting the target.
There can be no doubt that in Britain we need to improve the quality of the education given to our children and to consider seriously the society in which we live and the way in which it is developing. However, a part of what the hon. Gentleman said placed a great deal of the onus in achieving all those aims on schools and on teachers. He began to admit, in commenting on the influence of television and mass media, that there were other issues to consider. We need to make it clear that there have been developments in society in the past 10 or 20 years for which teachers and schools cannot bear responsibility, and which are of far more fundamental importance.
Of course, what we did not hear in the hon. Gentleman's speech was the fact that, for more than half the period in question and certainly over the past 15 years, his own Government have been in power. Some of the things that they have done, and the atmosphere and the ambience created in our society by them, have contributed significantly to the problems that he described and the fears that he raised.
For example, if we consider the legacy of the past 15 years in education, we find in our schools that the lack of discipline and the instances of the exclusion of pupils for behavioural problems are growing. Probably, those occurrences are vastly under-reported, yet the figures are still growing tremendously. It is only in the past 12 months that the Government have begun to consider seriously ways in which those problems may be tackled.
It is not the first occasion on which the Government have considered those problems. The substantial Elton report, which was published about four years ago, included 138 recommendations on how schools, local authorities, other agencies and central Government could contribute towards making schools places where children could learn in an ordered atmosphere. However, it has taken some four years or more from the publication of that report for the Government to take the problem seriously. The motion addresses a problem which has been experienced especially in the past decade.
We have seen the drive towards the local management of schools; I entirely agree with the Government on the need to give schools greater independence and control over finances. Labour local authorities were pioneering the idea
40
long before the great education reform Bill was introduced. [Interruption.] I heard a sedentary intervention of "Rubbish", but I assure the hon. Member who made it that he plainly does not know what happened in many local authorities around the country. There were Labour authorities that pioneered the local management of schools. There may have been other schools, as the hon. Member for Louth—
Mr. Michael Brown: Brigg and Cleethorpes.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I am sorry. It was the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I cannot keep pace with the rate of change in England. There were those who opposed the local management of schools, but, let us be clear, it was pioneered by Labour authorities.
Due to the way in which the entire financing of education has changed in the past few years, there have been tremendous pressures in schools—arising principally out of the way in which the average salary has been used in the formula rather than the real salary—on the number of teachers employed. For the first time, pupil-teacher ratios in primary schools, especially, are beginning to rise. However, classes are getting bigger and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that that is a legacy of some of the ill-considered changes that have been made by the Government, which, so often, were right in principle, but wrong in application.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that expenditure per pupil since 1979 has been increased by 47 per cent. in real terms? That has surely added to the ability of schools to educate children and to give them the three essentials of skills, discipline and enthusiasm for education. As he says that the Opposition take the matter so seriously, will he explain why the Government Benches are well populated at the moment, yet the Opposition Benches are completely bare, as they have been throughout the debate so far?
Mr. Griffiths: May I take the more serious point made by the hon. Gentleman about the issue of funding? The funding of education in the post-war period has increased tremendously, but a large part of that increase has been to meet the greater demands of the education system, such as the use of computers in schools, laboratory equipment and the machinery needed for new technology.
When I was in school, they were only beginning to bring in equipment such as lathes. Yes, it was very much cheaper to educate children when one relied on pen, paper, pencils, chalk and blackboards, when overhead projectors were unknown and one was lucky if one had a slide show once a year in a school during the 1940s or 1950s.
Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman referred to class sizes. Would he think back to when he was at school, when, I expect, he was educated in the traditional method by which the teachers stood in front of the class with a blackboard and the pupils sat facing the teacher in ranks at their desks? Surely, it is much easier to keep control of the class and to impart knowledge to a class so structured than it is with the modern methods under which children sit at little tables each doing their own thing, and the teacher has to try to keep up with what each little group is doing. If we returned to the methods that

41
were so effective when the hon. Gentleman was at school, would not we be able to manage with larger classes and produce a much better result?
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman was assuming that I was satisfied with the quality of education that I received. Indeed, at lunchtime today, I made a speech at Dulwich college on Labour's proposals for the future of education, which was well received, in which I explained where I felt that my own education could have been improved.
Whether the children are taught in serried rows or in groups in a class room is irrelevant. Instead, we must focus on the outcome of their education. In my case, in many subjects, the outcome was very good; in other subjects, it was not good. I was sitting in a row when I was being taught subjects A and B, but the outcome was far better in one subject than the other. It would seem that the rows within the class room were irrelevant. Far more important was the relationship between myself and the teacher and whatever else it was that motivated me. That is why it is so wrong to try to provide blanket solutions or to mount a blanket attack on what teachers are doing in schools.
Unfortunately, pupil-teacher ratios are rising in primary schools, despite the headline improvement in funding. Hiding behind that fact and not recognising that there are problems are perhaps reasons why all the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Romford referred have been placed on our doorstep. We have been far too prepared to defend our own positions, wherever we may find ourselves in the political and education spectrums, without looking too closely at the complications that arise in trying to ensure that children are taught effectively.
The headline figures tell us that there are better performances at GCSE examinations and at A-level. More children are going on to higher education of various sorts. Against that background, one would have to say that the hon. Member for Romford was entirely misplaced when he expressed fears about the education system. I was in sympathy, however, with much that he had to say about standards. Despite the good headline figures that reflect progress in the post-war period, we must deal with complaints that basic literacy and numeracy standards are not high enough to enable employers to have confidence in youngsters when they come to them for work. We know, too, that some of our comparisons with international competitors show that we are not as good as we should be.
We can spread the blame where we like, but it should be acknowledged that some good ideas, in principle, were being thrown up in the 1970s—for example, a national curriculum and schools having greater control of their budgets. Unfortunately, those ideas were implemented in a way that has proved to be counterproductive.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Unfortunately, even the best motivated teachers in a school frequently find themselves without any serious basis of comparison with what is being achieved by better schools elsewhere when educating pupils of a similar calibre. Is it not disappointing that the National Union of Teachers should set its face against one of the simplest methods of informing teachers what can be achieved, in the form of tests?
Mr. Griffiths: That is where one of the great confusions arises. The NUT is not opposed either to the assessment or testing of pupils. Its membership, by means of a ballot conducted throughout the union, decided that it would
42
continue with the assessment of children to provide information about the progress of children for the children themselves and for the parents. At the same time, it did not believe that this year's national curriculum tests should be compulsory, because the tests this year will be drastically changed next year.
The union's membership is happy to ensure that the testing system is the right one, but it does not see why it is necessary to force all schools to take a test this year that is not likely to be a similar one next year. Let us be clear that NUT teachers have no problem with ideas about assessment and testing, although they have specific opposition to this year's testing alone. There is no problem about the future or about the outcome of the Dearing review, when—let us hope—there will be a system of both assessment and testing.
We should not forget that the Dearing review places greater emphasis on the assessment of pupils than on specific testing. I hope that, following the review, we shall have a system of assessment and testing with which teachers can be comfortable in the context of their work load. I hope also that they will feel that they are providing information to parents that will be genuinely helpful to them in assessing the progress of their children and the way in which the school is performing.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the position of the NUT as he has described it from his perception was not that which most of us understood from listening to the union's representatives at its national conferences as shown on television—or will he sensibly disown the speakers from the London borough of Islington, who made such a lot of noise?
Mr. Griffiths: As a consultant for the NUT, I was at the conference. I was amazed and extremely concerned when I heard some of the things that were said there. I am entirely confident, however, from my knowledge of teachers who are in their class rooms and who do not work through the structures of the union to attend its conference, that many of the speeches did not reflect the views of most members of the union.
I was trying to explain that the NUT's policy on assessment and testing is not one of blanket opposition. It has specific complaints about this year's tests and it is involved in the consultation process within the Dearing review. It is looking forward to the final proposals. I hope that the proposals will be of a nature that will enable teachers and pupils to have information on progress to pass on to parents as well as information about the way in which the school itself is performing.
Lady Olga Maitland: Am I to understand that, after all, the NUT will be supporting the full programme of testing? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that parents are seeking not only an assessment from the child's teacher but a comparison with other children throughout the country? In the absence of that information, the parent will never know whether the child is performing well. We should not rely on the individual teacher.
Mr. Griffiths: It is a matter of assessment and testing. That is what the Dearing review is about, as the hon. Lady will recognise. As I have said, the review placed greater emphasis on assessment than testing, but the two processes go together. Parents have a right to information about their

43
child's progress. The school needs to produce information about the way in which it is educating children who attend it.
The hon. Lady and I may part company over the fact that I do not believe that it is the job of the Department for Education to spend millions of pounds publishing national lists of results. Schools can publish those results and if that information is used by the newspapers or whatever, that is entirely up to them. However, the Department for Education should not have to spend millions of pounds to disseminate information which schools should make available to the parents of their pupils.
Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State for Education may wish to consider seriously the decision taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce a system of testing and assessment with which, I suspect, Conservative Members would be entirely happy, as would parents and teachers throughout the country?
Mr. Griffiths: There is a great deal of merit in the Scottish system. The Labour party is following closely how that system works in Scotland to discover whether the benefits can be translated into an English situation—and perhaps even into a Welsh situation, who knows?
Testing and assessment are required. The hon. Member for Romford referred to English literature. I also studied English literature. While the hon. Gentleman's examples were lurid, I entirely agree that they are not suitable material to be found in most classrooms for children in their early and mid teens.
The hon. Member said that Professor Eagleton had the support of 20 professors. That may be 20 professors too many, but we are still talking about only a small minority of those involved in education. We should really consider what is happening in classrooms.
I taught for 13 years and when I marked my pupils' work, without fail I marked spelling errors. I always put the correct spelling in the margin and I always drew that to the attention of my pupils. On some occasions, I even made students write out those words to reinforce the correct spelling.
Lady Olga Maitland: Not only is it appropriate to point out spelling mistakes, it is important to mark down work when a child fails to produce correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, because if that is not done, the child will never learn the disciplines that are involved.
Mr. Griffiths: I always corrected grammar if it was wrong in a sentence. Yes, I told pupils that they would lose marks. If an essay was worth eight out of 10 or an A in terms of its content, it could lose marks and even a grade if the spelling and grammar were atrocious. However, those judgments must be made against the principle that teachers should teach children how to spell and write properly. There should be no mistake about that. One should not then try to tar the whole of the teaching profession, and all English teachers, because of a few lurid examples of what happens in a tiny minority of schools. We should get it right in those schools, but we should not give the impression that the whole of the system is contaminated by bad practice.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so patient. With regard to spelling, does he agree that teachers must conduct regular weekly spelling tests? Why do what I call the rather soft left members of the teaching profession resist those tests?
Mr. Griffiths: As I did not teach English at the stage when I would expect children to be doing spelling tests, I cannot rely on my personal experience. However, as a pupil, I learnt lists of words. I did not find that that inhibited my ability to enjoy English. I certainly believe that such tests should be part of the way in which teachers can teach English. If spelling tests have died out, I believe that they should be revived.
The point about Sir Ron Dearing's review is that it saved the Government from the worst breakdown in our education system in living memory. Sir Ron Dearing saved the Government from a breakdown in our schools. We should recognise the Government's courage in accepting the recommendations of the Dearing review because that amounted to a complete U-turn on everything that was said and done before that point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am equally grateful for his kind words. However, he will acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognised that there was a problem in the development of the curriculum and testing last year. He asked Sir Ron Dearing to come in, to consider the problem impartially and speedily and to suggest solutions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State then accepted those suggestions. I am sure that that puts the hon. Gentleman's kind words in context.
Mr. Griffiths: I entirely agree that Sir Ron Dearing was appointed on the Secretary of State's initiative. However, he was appointed because there was total deadlock between virtually the whole of the teaching profession, the Secretary of State and parents who made it quite clear that they were concerned about what was happening. The Secretary of State had to find a way out and Sir Ron Dearing proved to be that way out.
I pay credit to the Secretary of State for recognising the need to appoint Sir Ron Dearing and for accepting all the principles behind the Dearing review. In the meantime, nearly £500 million had been spent on introducing the curriculum which was just about to go through a massive transformation because of the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing. To return to my earlier point, this represents a missed opportunity in the history of education in this country.
Back in 1976, the Prime Minister of the day, now Lord Callaghan, effectively started the debate about the national curriculum and general standards in our schools. The Conservative Government picked up the baton when they came to power. Unfortunately, instead of engaging in proper consultation, they had a view of the national curriculum, assessment and testing and they pushed it through despite the protests and objections of virtually everyone in education. If the Government had only listened at that point, hundreds of millions of pounds could have been saved and we might have reached the point that we will be reaching in the next year or two, three or four years earlier and without the travail, confrontation, damage and breakdown that have occurred in our education system in the meantime.

45
The national curriculum may be the most serious example of ill-considered spending of money. However, we must also consider the Government's grant-maintained schools initiative which is slowly but surely grinding to a halt. There has been a massive waste of money in the introduction of grant-maintained schools not only in respect of the Government's ploys to encourage more schools to go grant maintained, but in respect of the way in which those schools, at the earliest stage, were given additional and extra funding which resulted in state schools—local authority schools—losing out. Millions of pounds were lost there. It can be argued that the assisted places scheme, at a cost of something like £3,500 a place in 1993, is not the most effective use of resources in improving our education system.
Dr. Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again; I thank him for his patience. Can he tell us the Labour party's policy with regard to grant-maintained schools? Would Labour continue to support them or close them down? While he is talking about the Labour party's education policy, could he tell us its policy in all other areas of education, because the House and the rest of the nation are waiting to hear what it is?
Mr. Griffiths: Our policy on grant-maintained schools is clear. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to keep up with the news. Our policy is that the appointed Funding Agency for Schools would be abolished, and grant-maintained schools would continue, but they would not have that status. They would be run like any other locally maintained schools. The whole of the funding of schools would be reviewed. That is currently being examined by the Select Committee on Education, and the Government have their own common funding formula process going on.
Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: If you wait for a moment, you also asked me to develop the whole of Labour's education policy in your wide intervention.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman means me, whom he should be addressing.
Mr. Griffiths: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Grant-maintained schools would continue to exist. They would continue to have an independent role like any locally managed school. Indeed, the Labour party is looking at a number of options for types of local management because we found that many heads are not happy with the type of local management that they have at present. Some of them feel that they have too much; some feel that they have too little.
Dr. Spink: I am still confused about the Labour party's policy on grant-maintained schools. Would the schools exist with total management control of the governing bodies consisting essentially of parents of children at those schools, or would the status of the schools change?
Mr. Griffiths: I am astonished by what the hon. Gentleman said, because the majority of governors of grant-maintained schools are not parents. As he said, parents are not the majority. In developing its policies, the Labour party is looking at proposals to enable more members of a governing body to be elected rather than appointed, as happens at present. The governing body of a
46
grant-maintained school would probably still be substantially what it is at present, but any changes introduced for greater democracy would apply to grant-maintained schools as locally maintained and managed schools, so the status would be gone. Let us make it clear: the status would be gone, but the schools would continue to exist and would be managed in much the same way as they are at present.
There has been a whole series of Government initiatives which I shall not dwell on now. The assisted places scheme and the city technology colleges have all cost a lot of extra money which has been ploughed into the system. Much more of the Government's money has been given to those schools than to other schools, and the rest of the state sector has been badly let down. It is that unfairness which has caused so many of the problems that we have today.
I shall set out some of the positive things that need to be done in education to combat some of the problems raised by the hon. Member for Romford. First, we would give priority to nursery education. The research evidence in this country and abroad is strong and shows that good-quality education gives children the best start in life. Over a period, the investment in nursery education would be paid back time and again in savings for the state.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I totally agree that nursery education in one form or another is essential for young children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that 90 per cent. of children in this country already have nursery provision and, more important, there must be a diversity of provision for them? We do not want to be so prescriptive on the development of toddlers that we are forcing them down a road which is unsuitable. Surely, we need to be flexible with toddlers, and 90 per cent. of them are already provided for.
Mr. Griffiths: That is a myth. Ninety per cent. of three and four-year-olds in England and, indeed, in Wales do not receive nursery education. It is true that 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds have some experience in a social grouping for some part of the week. That may be in a nursery school, a nursery class or a playgroup, and the provision is often only part time.
The way in which Labour would tackle the problem is to meet parental demand. If parents want nursery provision, it will be provided over a period. If they want playgroups, we will ensure through the standards we set and the support we give to playgroups that that will be a good-quality experience. We would not want to have a total blanket and say that everyone must do this or that. We are saying that nursery education gives children an excellent start to their learning lives. We would set in motion a programme to provide nursery education for those parents who want it for their children. If parents want playgroups, we will ensure that there is good financial support and a good standard set to ensure that the experience is good for children. Let us have no doubt about that. We would not force anyone to take up a nursery place. What I am saying is that we would develop a programme to meet demand.
I shall examine some of the issues on expenditure. First, the Government already provide money for under-five services through the standard spending assessment. Some local education authorities use all that money and more on providing a large number of nursery places. Other local education authorities do not use any of the money for that sort of provision. By a system of meeting parental demand,

47
those authorities where the money is not spent on such a provision, but where there is a demand, would have to begin to reorder their spending priorities. The money is already provided by the Government, so no extra cash whatever would be involved.
Mr. Forth: That is startling news which we should like the hon. Gentleman to develop—my colleagues would agree that he should be given time to do so. He seems to be introducing a new element of central Government compulsion on local education authorities. It is an interesting thought which I should like him to develop. The hon. Gentleman might also suggest which other elements of education would be sacrificed to this new priority which he would compel LEAs to adopt.
Mr. Griffiths: For a start, there will be no element of compulsion in the sense of making it a statutory duty for places to be provided. There is, however, a duty for the education authority to look at ways of providing nursery education where there is demand for it.
The hon. Gentleman's Department, the Department of the Environment or the Treasury—place the responsibility where you will—already provides money which is theoretically available for this purpose, but many LEAs do not use it. That is all I am saying.
In some authorities where the Conservatives lost control at the election, there has been a re-ordering of priorities. Money has been provided for nursery education without any increase in the tax being levied by those authorities, other than for inflation. We do not need to raise any scare stories about how it will be done. In the Government's own immortal words, it will be—to a certain extent—as resources allow.
In addition, we will divert spending from areas such as city technology colleges—although that aspect has more or less died a death—and the assisted places scheme. Those who are in the system would continue to be served, but money earmarked for the future of those areas could be brought in to nursery education. There are a number of options to be looked at before we begin to think about the additional spending.
It is an important area and, as I was saying before that series of interventions, the best-researched account of what happens where good-quality nursery education is provided is an American study which covered 27 years. Children from the same area were studied, and those who had the nursery education experience were compared with those who did not.
At the age of 27, those who had had nursery education had higher earnings. More of them were home owners, and had attained a higher level of education in school. The cost of meeting their special educational needs was not as high as for those who did not have nursery education, and fewer were receiving social security benefits. Far fewer of them had been involved in crime and there were far fewer teenage pregnancies.
All in all, through extra taxation, fewer benefits and less money paid in relation to crime and imprisonment, there was a saving of $7 for every dollar invested in the system for those children who had gone through the nursery system. It is difficult for the Government to look at the
48
long-term situation, but that is an investment in children which not only did well for them but, over a period, was good for the country.
Far fewer of them were involved in crime. Is not that something which we all want to achieve? The American experience suggests that that is one way of doing it.
A part of the Highscope system is the close and cultivated relationship between the schools, teachers and parents. We would want to encourage such a partnership throughout the schooling system. One way of catching the parents, and catching them young, is by having nursery education. Parents are far happier being involved initially at that stage than when they are involved in secondary schools. We believe that that is one way of improving those relationships, and it will help to make schools more effective.
We do not believe that there is one blueprint which the Government can impose on every school. We know that there is a series of ways in which successful schools are organised and led. It should be the Government's job to make sure that the examples of good practice are widely disseminated, and that schools have the opportunity to look at them and to take them up.
I know that the so-called assertive discipline method is being taken on by many schools. After using the system for a year, a school in the Wirral that I visited doubled the numbers of children who were getting the top three grades at GCSE. The school is expecting a further improvement in its results this year. The Government should be actively encouraging those things, and should not be trying—as they did with the national curriculum and its method of assessment and testing—to ram it down the throats of teachers and telling them that this is the way to improve results. With the Dearing review, we now have had a complete change.
We want to move forward sensitively with the best practice. We should not beat teachers over the head and lambast them. We should encourage them to do their best, and to make sure that the pupils do their best.
We will be taking a backward step if the Bill dealing with the education of teachers, which will be coming here shortly from the other place, goes through in the form originally envisaged by the Government. The Government have the concept of the school itself being solely responsible for the education and training of those who wish to enter the teaching profession.
An amendment has been passed in the Lords that will tie in the schools with the institutes of higher education. I hope that we will retain that amendment, because we need an improvement in our initial teacher education. I would have thought—and I hope that many other hon. Members agree—that, after 15 years of Conservative rule, there would be higher standards in our institutes of higher education. We must improve them.
Mr. Stephen: I have listened with genuine interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Is he aware that he has already spoken for nearly twice as long as did the proposer of the motion?
Mr. Griffiths: I am aware of that. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that more than half of that time has been taken dealing with interventions. I will say one or two more critical things about teacher education, and then I will give the hon. Gentleman the chance to make the speech that he is obviously bursting to make.

49
We need better teacher education, and far better professional development and in-service training in our schools. We also need to introduce a one-year, or possibly two-year, induction for new teachers. New teachers far too often operate under the fear of failure. There is a culture where if a new teacher goes into a class and does not successfully teach or control it, he is dubbed a failure straight away. The teacher will feel a failure, and other teachers will regard him as such.
A proper method of induction could get rid of that approach, which has often stopped teachers from developing properly, and we could have good-quality teachers. I know that it is happening in some schools. The school in which my daughter started to teach two years ago had a superb induction scheme from which she benefited, and she has made great strides in settling down in that school. So it is being done.
If there is good-quality initial teacher education and good-quality professional development and training, one also must be able to say that those teachers who cannot teach must go. Let us make no bones about it. There must be proper and clear provision for teachers who, with all that help, turn out not to be able to communicate with children to end their connection with the school. That needs to be done clearly.
In our consultations, those involved in education have said that they are happy, given quality initial teacher education, quality professional development, quality induction and support, that when people cannot teach, they should not be in the classroom. Let us make no bones about that.
The issue of religious education and the role of assembly in schools has been mentioned. Let us make it clear that a school cannot be a substitute for either the home or the Church when it comes to religious education and assemblies. Yes, schools should provide religious education and should provide assemblies in which moral values can be inculcated or demonstrated to children. But we should not expect schools to make up for the deficiencies of parents or for the Church. Let us be clear about that. What the National Association of Head Teachers said about the difficulties for schools in the context of religious education was absolutely true. There are not people with the skills in our schools to take on such roles.
Dr. Spink: Train them.
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, they need to be trained, but one cannot go rushing in if one does not have the people to do it.
Lady Olga Maitland: It was done in the past.
Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Lady thinks that the religious education and assemblies that we had in the past are the key to the future, I should point out that while there were good examples in many places, there were just as many, if not more, in which that approach failed. One might argue that that is one of the reasons why we are where we are today. It is obviously a fruitful area of discussion. I now give the Floor to other hon. Members.
5.32 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who admitted to us that he spent much of his life before coming into the House as a teacher,
50
sitting in a raised position gazing at benches full of recalcitrant and obtuse pupils to whom he tried to impart the arts of spelling and learning, must rub his eyes this afternoon because he is in exactly the reverse position. He is in the learning seat this afternoon and he is confronted here by a line of persistent and patient teachers. He is the pupil. We are doing our best to penetrate his rather obtuse and impervious intellect with the lessons that he has to learn.
The hon. Gentleman is being forced to take extra classes as a result of the arrangements of the House. It is to the credit of the great corps of able teachers, instructors and expositors on these Benches that they have turned out in such quantity and displayed such considerable wit and knowledge in trying to teach this pupil something. I believe that he is not entirely impervious and that by the time we get to 7 o'clock he may have learnt his lesson. We shall have to wait and see.
I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on his good luck in winning the ballot, his good judgment in selecting this worthwhile topic and, above all, on the very good speech that he made. It was one of the few speeches that we shall be tempted to look up and refer to again after Hansard has been printed to learn pearls of wisdom. My hon. Friend's motion specifies education in the context of the need to safeguard the younger generation. I should like to say a few words in that context about religious education. I believe that most people consider that religious education has a vital part to play in the safeguarding objective which my hon. Friend's motion specifies.
Any mention of the topic of religious education immediately puts the spotlight on the Department for Education's famous circular 1/94—that is to say the first circular for 1994—entitled "Religious education and collective worship". The circular issued official guidance to local education authorities on the two vital topics of religious education and collective worship. It is a working guide or maker's handbook, so to speak, to the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education Act 1993. I believe that the circular, with which my hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar, is an historic document. It reflects a period of debate and decision making about religious education and collective worship in maintained schools of which future historians will not only take careful note but note with astonishment.
In our tolerant, secular and multi-faith age, is it really true that our House of Commons—indeed, our Parliament because the House of Lords was greatly involved—has legislated that
"All maintained schools must provide religious education and daily collective worship for all registered pupils and promote their spiritual, moral and cultural development.
Local agreed RE syllabuses for county schools … must in future reflect the fact that religious traditions in the country are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of other principal religions.
Collective worship in county schools and equivalent grant-maintained schools must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character, though not distinctive of any particular Christian denomination."
Is it really true that the House of Commons and the House of Lords have put into the statute book those clear-cut and specific requirements for the teaching of moral and ethical truths on a Christian basis? Yes, it is true. It is an astonishing fact and one which future generations will scratch their heads about.

51
The fact that the circular has been issued with the clarity and unequivocal commitment to the teaching predominantly of Christianity and Christian worship in our schools reflects enormous credit on the integrity and clear-headedness, not to say the political and personal courage, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and his predecessors, ably assisted and supported by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, who will reply to the debate, and perhaps especially the Minister of State in another place, Baroness Blatch.
Lest my right hon. and hon. Friends or anyone else should fear that they have performed a legislative confidence trick in the circular, and that the guidance, and the 1988 and 1993 Acts which it reflects, represent the work of unrepresentative zealots foisting unwanted provisions on a secular and irreligious, although correspondingly passive and apathetic, population—lest that myth should ever gain currency—I remind the House of some significant background facts and figures. Some people are trying to promulgate the idea that we have slipped through an unrepresentative measure.
First, support for the religious education and worship provisions set out in the then Education Reform Act 1988 was massive and cross-party when it was considered, debated and voted on in the House. In a free vote on the relevant clauses in the Education Reform Bill—I emphasise that it was a free vote—the voting was 372 to 108, which was a majority of 264 in favour of writing into the face of the Act that religious education should be compulsory and predominantly Christian. It is not easy to score a large majority on a free vote.
Secondly, the voting reflected faithfully, as free votes so often do, the British population's feelings on the issue. That national consciousness and preference is well reflected in the latest 1992–93 report on religion, "British Social Attitudes", which found that 69 per cent. of respondents believed in God, 64 per cent. were associated with a religious denomination and 70 per cent. favoured school prayers. That is the real world and the real national pulse that that massive majority vote reflected.
Lady Olga Maitland rose—
Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
Mr. Alison: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) out of courtesy to the Front-Bench spokesman and then to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I am becoming a little worried because the hon. Member said that his purpose in this debate was to put me on a learning curve and educate me. I voted in favour of the amendment to which he referred and I am well aware of the survey. When people write to me about religious education I mention that to them.
Mr. Alison: I am happy to accept that rebuke from the hon. Gentleman and hope that it will be temporary. The art of teaching is reinforcing a pupil's knowledge and exposing the lacuna associated with it, which is what I shall do.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is symptomatic of the need for a properly structured
52
Christian education in schools that a poll at Easter discovered that one in four children are unable to recite the Lord's prayer? Does he also agree that it is disappointing that a vast number of local standing advisory councils on religious education have failed to provide a model Christian syllabus? There is a strong tendency to undermine our efforts to bring Christian teaching into our schools in favour of what I would describe as a multicultural mish-mash.
Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point and share her shock and dismay at the evidence of lack of knowledge and understanding that she exposes. Let us take comfort from the fact that the Education Reform Act dates back to 1988 and the subsequent Education Act back to 1993 and that sometimes it takes a little time for a rocket to lift off into orbit, but into orbit it will go. There is land to be possessed and we will possess it.
I was trying to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues are not out on a limb in any sense in the lead that they have given on religious education. I shall remind the House of one or two other people who are out on a limb. I have some information to impart to the hon. Member for Bridgend —Mr. Nigel de Gruchy is one such person. He is the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and it is clear from his article in The Daily Telegraph on 20 April that when he calls for the scrapping of the legal requirement for religious education and worship—one can hardly credit it —he really wants secular schools. That is not what most people want, as I tried to suggest, and certainly not what most mums and dads want. However, that is what Nigel de Gruchy wants. Was the hon. Member for Bridgend fully apprised of the fact that that was what a major union leader was calling for? Perhaps this is the time for him to enter a new learning curve.
Similarly, the recent statement by the National Association of Head teachers argues for all religions to be taught for the same amount of time. Think what it would mean—a supermarket shelf full of the religions of the world, all of which are to be given equal exposure and treatment. The NAHT argues that if that is not possible our schools should be secular.
Nigel de Gruchy and David Hart, the general secretary of the NAHT, appear to want cultural relativism or barren secularism in education—anything other than our Christian heritage.
Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Nigel de Gruchy said that schools can provide a better and more relevant moral code of ethics than that provided in the Bible?
Mr. Alison: That is the ultimate in presumption and arrogance. Union leaders are out of touch with their own members, let alone with parents. The NAHT argues that a daily act of Christian worship is an impossibility. I believe that David Hart has written in those terms to the Secretary of State. It is ironic that David Hart and the NAHT—a union which predominantly represents primary heads—should make that statement. A few weeks ago the Office for Standards in Education reported on religious education and showed that there is widespread compliance with the law in primary schools. Ofsted inspectors stated:
"all the schools complied with the requirement to provide daily collective worship".

53
Yet David Hart, who primarily represents primary school heads, told the Secretary of State that it was impossible to provide a daily act of worship. Who is kidding whom?
The real world is the world discovered by the Ofsted inspection. To elaborate on its report, it not only said that
"all the schools"—
that it had visited—
"complied with the requirement to provide daily collective worship"—
but that—
"Judged in terms of the quality of the opportunity they provided for social and moral development, standards in these acts of worship were satisfactory or better in 75 per cent of the schools".
Yet the general secretary of the relevant teachers union still said that it is an "impossibility" to conduct an act of worship in primary schools. I am not pretending, of course, that all is well with religious education and collective worship—my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) made that vividly clear in her intervention.
The position in secondary schools is certainly not as good as that reported by Ofsted in its visit to primary schools. There is still much land to be possessed in the relaunch of religious education following the 1988 and 1993 Acts. The Ofsted report contained some daunting facts and figures on the inadequate provision for religious education in primary and secondary schools. For example, it reported
"A high proportion of teachers lacked the confidence, expertise, enthusiasm and interest to teach the subject effectively; many had volunteered because they valued the contribution of RE to the pupils' moral and social education"
It is therefore still very necessary that greater confidence should be imparted to teachers, that more teachers specialise in religious education and that the status of that subject in the school curriculum and in subject provision should rise increasingly and be better regarded.
Let me quote a little vignette from paragraph 68 of the Ofsted report, which shows what could be done. It states:
"Primary heads generally took responsibility for planning and conducting the acts of worship and often used the occasion as a major vehicle for setting standards of behaviour and relationships in the school. Visiting speakers, including local clergy, were invited to most schools during the course of the year and often made an important contribution. Increasingly the teaching staff do not attend school acts of worship. Schools need to consider what such non-attendance signals to pupils and the limits which this may place upon following up themes from worship in the classroom."
Surely the way forward is for a good lead to be given by head teachers and for the maximum use and support to be derived from local clergy and laity. The local laity, who are committed and active in their own churches and denominations, live in the rough and tumble of the real secular world and they therefore have an immense contribution to make in the sphere of religious education. They could be of particular value in acts of worship, because they could help children to identify and integrate their view of life with work and religion.
A more positive lead should be forthcoming from the leaders in my own Church of England—not least some of its bishops and our Church of England Board of Education —in helping to raise the status of religious education and boosting it rather than criticising and denigrating it and collective worship.
I should like to refer in particular to the Board of Education and to an article which appeared on page 506 of this week's edition of The Tablet. The board seems to be
54
obsessed with the issue of religious pluralism and religious minorities and the lot and the role of other religions in state religious education rather than with the teaching opportunities offered for the faith of which it is the trustee and custodian. Surely its approach is out of perspective. Just 3 per cent. of children on our own maintained school rolls come from a non-Christian cultural or religious background.
I accept that there are a handful of areas, obviously Bradford is one, where there is a concentration of such religious minorities, but they are offered opt-out provisions under the religious education statutes. Surely the Church of England, through all its hierarchy and bureaucracy, should be seizing the opportunity to develop predominantly Christian religious education in our schools.
Mr. Rowe: Is not it also the case that in many instances those minorities have a far clearer grasp of the importance of religious education to the children of their communities than we appear to evince? When the Archbishop of Canterbury preached to us at the start of this Parliament he said that in his estimation Muslims and other minority religions in this country respected Christians to the extent that they were bold and stood up for their faith and despised them to the extent that they were difficult to define.
Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that important and significant reference on the record.
Anyone who has had any dealings with religious education in the maintained sector knows, for example, that the Islamic community, relatively small though it may be, would much prefer its children to be taught in a Church of England school or a maintained school where religious education is an important and constructive part of the curriculum. After all, for members of that community Jesus is a prophet as much as Mohammed. Those people would much prefer to have their children taught in a Christian context than in a wholly secular one.
I beg my revered superiors in my own Church—the bishops and the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility—to recall that no other European country has such liberal and multifaith religious education as we do in Britain. In virtually all European countries, religious education is almost totally Christian and Christianity is taught as true—the confessional approach. In many states, only practising Christians are permitted to teach the subject. Non-Christian faiths are taught, if they are taught at all, in the upper secondary schools. On this matter, we should take a lesson from Europe.
In the whole of Europe, only France has secular education; even the former communist countries are now putting Christianity back into the timetable. In 1963, in the United States a humanist mother successfully got the Supreme Court to ban school prayer on the ground that it infringed the first amendment requiring the separation of Church and state. I am glad to say that that lady's son is now fighting to have that ruling reversed, because he suffered from a lack of religious education in school. That 1963 ruling is being widely challenged in practically every state of America and the dissatisfaction with the secular education is revealed by the growth in Christian private schools. According to Andrew Greeley, professor of social science at the university of Chicago, 73 per cent. of Americans want daily prayers in state schools. It is surely only a matter of time before the 1963 Supreme Court ruling

55
is overturned. Our own Church of England bureaucrats should savour and increasingly represent that spirit and movement.
It is worth reminding my colleagues how inextricably our language, culture and history are bound up with Christianity. You, Madam Deputy Speaker and your successor in the Chair, will need to exercise the wisdom of Solomon in deciding who to call next. You will have to have faith, hope and charity in believing that Madam Speaker's plea for short speeches will be observed. You will need the patience of Job as you sit in the Chair and you probably often wish that you could nip off and watch "Love Thy Neighbour" in the television room. Looking at our colleagues in the round, not many of us are inclined to turn the other cheek. We are more inclined to pursue the policy of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If one is my hon. Friend the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition, one finds many of one's colleagues a thorn in the flesh. One is probably inclined to call some female colleagues Jezebels, some male colleagues Judases. One may even think that The Times, or even The Daily Telegraph, utters too many Jeremiahs. If one is my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), one is well known as a good Samaritan, as all those who followed his course to that housing estate where he confronted the yobbo the other day will only too readily know. We hope that the hon. Member for Bridgend in his learning capacity, will have a Damascus road experience before long.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I have already had it.
Mr. Alison: We very much hope that the hon. Gentleman who will follow me to speak will not be all things to all men. It will be difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who does not suffer fools gladly, to be sympathetic towards what the hon. Gentleman has to say in that case.
We have here the opportunity of listening to words which represent pearls of great price from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), since he went into the Whips Office, must have discovered the meaning of the phrase, "Wheels within wheels". My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is a David confronting the Goliath of British Rail and the French consortium in the massive intrusions on his lovely constituency landscape. The Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), will be made a scapegoat if we finish the debate with the wrong vote at the wrong time.
One could go on with many such illustrations. I hope that my speech will not be weighed in the balance and found wanting. The point is that Christianity is deeply written into the texture of our national cultural, religious and social life and we must get RE on to a rising trajectory in the role and the significance that it occupies in the life and teaching of our country.
I am pleased to be able to support the great initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford in launching us into this important debate.
6.2 pm
Mr. Don Foster: I join all the other hon. Members who have spoken in congratulating the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on initiating this important, interesting and wide-ranging debate. I enjoyed his contribution and learnt a great deal from it. I shall not touch on many of his arguments, but I agreed with most of what he said. I especially agreed with his remarks about some of the things that we have seen on our television screens. I share his view that the decision made by the House recently in respect of video nasties was a victory for common sense and an example of the House operating at its best.
I agreed with more of what the hon. Member for Romford had to say than what was said in interventions by some of his hon. Friends. For example, the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) advocated that we return to the days when pupils sat before their teachers in serried rows. It was reminiscent of the ditty:
"Ram it in, ram it in,
Children's heads are hollow;
Ram it in, ram it in,
Still there's more to follow."
The world of education has learnt a great deal from those days, and some of the approaches to education that have been adopted in our classrooms are much more constructive than was suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Romford will agree with me in that respect because, in his interesting contribution, he made it clear that he believed—I agree with him—that our education system must be designed to cater for the aptitudes and abilities of individual pupils. That means considering, in part at least, a more individualised approach to what happens in the classroom.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will not think me discourteous if I do not spend much time in responding to his interesting contribution. He suggested that it was primarily intended as a lesson for the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). However, I was skulking at the back of the classroom and I picked up a few of the pearls of wisdom. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a full-scale debate in the House both on religious education and on the issue of collective worship in our schools.
It may save time and avoid some of the interventions that may have been planned if I remind the House that, like the hon. Member for Bridgend, I am an adviser to the National Union of Teachers and, like the hon. Member for Bridgend, I attended briefly the NUT conference. However, unlike the hon. Member for Bridgend, I have said publicly in advance of the debate that although I agree with the anxieties of the NUT about testing, I believe that the tactics that it has adopted are incorrect.
The hon. Member for Romford said that he wished to speak about two subjects—education and upbringing. That links, appropriately, what happens in our schools with the role that parents can play in the crucial task of educating people.
Everyone in the House would agree that education is vital, not only for individual pupils, but for the future of our country. There can be no more crucial investment than investment in the education service. I hope that Members will agree that the cost of providing poor education is ultimately greater than the cost of providing a first-class education service for all.

57
The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to one of those sectors of our education service in which we need to do much more—nursery education. I was disappointed that it was not referred to by the proposer of the motion. I think that it is now accepted by all the major political parties that nursery education and the development of nursery education are crucial. Nothing could be more important than making the right start, and nothing is more damaging than getting it wrong.
The hon. Member for Bridgend made an eloquent case for nursery education. In view of the time, I shall not refer to some of the important issues that he mentioned. The hon. Gentleman was remiss in not being able to present to the House a convincing explanation of the way in which the Labour party would pay for the massive expansion of nursery education for which it calls.
The Liberal Democrat party has made it clear that we would like a massive expansion of nursery education. We believe that that expansion cannot wait, and that it must be instituted as rapidly as possible. We have made it clear that we believe that it will cost a great deal of money—about £806 million annually, although there will be some savings from the 40,000 jobs that will be created by that expansion. A massive building programme will be needed, possibly of the order of £1.5 billion, and a significant training programme will be needed to ensure that all the nursery teachers who will be required have the necessary skills.
We recognise that our programme is ambitious and costly, and that we need to say where the money will come from, which is why we have said honestly that we believe that the money must come from general taxation and, if there is a need and we cannot find it from any other source, general taxation will have to increase to pay for it.
The hon. Member for Bridgend, if he is honest, is saying nothing different from the Government, and that is that nursery education must wait until resources become available.
Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman has said frankly that his party would increase general taxation to improve education. Can he tell us by how much taxation would have to be increased to pay for all the other improvements that his party stands for in health, environment, social services and so on?
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shoreham for giving me an opportunity, but I fear that if I go into the question of health and other matters you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will rule me out of order. I shall perhaps simply remind you that at the time of the last Budget my party put forward a fully costed alternative budget. It included significant improvements in the education service. Although we suggested that taxation should increase, the level that we had in mind was nowhere near that proposed and implemented by the Conservative party. We said at the last election that we would raise taxes if necessary, in marked contrast with the Conservative party, which said nothing of the sort. Indeed, the Conservatives implied to the electorate that they hoped to reduce taxation. Our estimate of the cost of a massive expansion of nursery education is less than half a penny on income tax, at both income tax rates.
The hon. Member for Bridgend has failed to make it clear where the Labour party stands on that matter. That is a pity, because the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been going round the country telling people how bad
58
the Conservative party and, to a lesser extent, the Liberal Democrats have been in their nursery education provision. Will the hon. Member for Bridgend remind the hon. Member for Blackburn that his local education authority provides nursery education for less than 19 per cent. of the relevant population, whereas the average for the country as a whole stands at some 24 per cent?
A report published today, entitled "Major's children 94", discusses the feelings and attitudes about which the hon. Member for Romford is so concerned. He would be as disappointed as me to read in that report that the vast majority of young people say that the only reason that they go to school is to meet their friends. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should develop our education service in such a way that schools become places which children want to attend because they see the benefits of schooling and a good, rounded education.
One step that we could take would be to deal with the state of our school buildings. Estimates show that the backlog of repair and maintenance amounts to some £4.3 billion. Although the Government have made some interesting and helpful suggestions to tackle truancy, I hope that they will consider tackling the state of school buildings because, if we could make schools attractive, it would go some way towards reducing truancy.
The main thrust of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Romford, however, linked education with the family. It is crucial that parents are involved in their children's education. Early last week, the National Consumer Council produced a report called "Home and School: Building a Better Partnership". It contained some interesting ideas to develop the concept of the school-parent partnership. I suspect that the Minister will say a few words about that important matter in his winding-up speech.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that the relationship between schools and parents is not just about parents charters. Only today, we learnt that few people understand the content of the patients charter. I suspect that the new parents charter will not go far in developing the link between schools and parents. One way to develop that partnership is by ensuring that parents are given adequate, meaningful and useful information about what is happening in schools, particularly as it affects their children.
The Minister and Conservative Members may say that the Government's current testing and assessment procedures linked to league tables are providing that information, but I entirely disagree. The information is collected through educationally unsound tests. The information from the testing system is partial and does not help parents. The Secretary of State appears to be back-tracking from what he accepted only a few months ago.
The Dearing report, to which reference has already been made, recommended collaboration with the Office for Standards in Education and the School Curriculum Assessment Authority in mounting a research project into the potential of value added as a measure of achievement. In accepting the Dearing report in its entirety, the Secretary of State was presumed by people outside to have accepted the principle of the urgent need to consider the concept of value added as a vital component of league tables and tests.
Mr. Forth indicated assent.
Mr. Foster: I note the Minister's acceptance. If that is so, it contrasts strangely with the remarks in a document produced by the Conservative party, in which the Secretary of State, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament representing Oxford, West and Abingdon, referred to my comments and said:
"Mr. Foster proposes to make the tables 'value-added' … distorting the facts and making them unintelligible."
That is strange, given that the Secretary of State accepted the principle of value added. I hope that the Minister will now intervene and put the record straight.
Mr. Forth: I am happy to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepts the need for the SCAA and Ofsted to look into ways of establishing meaningful "value-added" concepts in the publication of school results. But neither he nor I, nor any other sensible person, accepts massaging the figures to give the outcome which many people would prefer rather than a true portrayal of the performance of schools that value-added measures would give. We are asking the SCAA to establish a validity of approach, and we eagerly await that.
Mr. Foster: In that case, I agree with the Minister. If he says that he wants a new vehicle that will enable us to make judgments about schools based on issues that include value added, I am more than happy to agree with him, and I hope that that will be introduced as rapidly as possible.
The issue of parent-school relationships means that parents should have more opportunity to know what is going on and have a voice in it. I hope that the parents' advice shops that have been established in one or two parts of the country, and the conciliation centres to which parents can go in cases of dispute, will be expanded. Although I do not advocate it, I see some merit in looking into the possibility of establishing an educational ombudsman.
The hon. Member for Bridgend mentioned the proposed legislation on teacher training. Although I share his anxieties about the proposed legislation, which we shall have much opportunity to debate in the House and in Committee, I hope that during the Bill's passage we shall discuss the importance of ensuring that teacher-training courses instruct student teachers on how best to work with parents and the local community. That should be part of teacher-training programmes, but currently it rarely is.
Once in post, teachers need to be given time to develop their relationships with parents and with the wider community. That is very difficult for many of them, because of the overloading that they have experienced through the national curriculum, testing and assessment procedures and the massive increase in bureaucracy that has resulted from much of the Government's recent legislation.
Above all, it is crucial for parents to have a better chance of a say in the education process. Education, after all, should be everyone's business. Many parents currently find it difficult to know how they are expected to have a say, however—partly owing to recent legislation that has centralised power, transferring it from local communities and local government to the Secretary of State and often passing it on to quangos. Such bodies are undoubtedly remote and undemocratic, operating at some distance from parental groups and holding many meetings in secret.
Lady Olga Maitland: I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that parents should have more input. Does
60
he agree that it was parents who opted for grant-maintained schools? Given that parental choice brought the schools into that sector, does the Liberal party intend not to sweep them away?
Mr. Foster: This is, I think, the third time this year that the hon. Lady has asked me that question. I shall give her the same reply again. I do not agree with grant-maintained schools. I do not think it right for a particular group of parents, at a particular time, to vote on the future for all time of an individual school which, after all, should be the property of the wider community.
Given that the hon. Lady is so concerned about parental choice, and believes that balloting for grant-maintained schools is a good example of the exercise of that choice, I do not understand why she has never agreed with the following proposition: if she is right about that form of voting, why is it not equally right for parents to be allowed to vote, if they so wish, for schools to opt back into local education authority control? But the hon. Lady will never agree with that. She is prepared to vote for parental choice only on the rare occasions when it supports the party-political dogma of the Conservatives.
Unfortunately, evidence from around the country suggests that very few parents support that political dogma. Only recently, the Secretary of State spoke at the most ill-named conference of all time: "Grant-Maintained Schools—Maintaining the Momentum". There is no momentum towards grant-maintained schools: the number of ballots is declining, as is the number of schools voting yes—to a marked extent. I hope that I have explained to the hon. Lady where I stand and why I disagree with her; but I also hope that I have made clear the crucial importance of parental involvement.
The motion refers specifically to the need to
"encourage a wide diversity of choice in schooling".
The hon. Member for Romford and I agree with that wording, but I suspect that our interpretation of it differs widely. For instance, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to support the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in her view that the introduction of grant-maintained schools is an example of an increase in diversity and choice; no doubt he supports the principle of city technology colleges for the same reason.
I disagree with that interpretation. I disagree with the concept that is implicit in the hon. Gentleman's reference to choice, which suggests that he assumes that all parents can choose where to send their children. In fact, the vast majority of parents have no choice at all—which is why it is crucial for the choice and diversity that he mentions to apply in each school. Each school should be able to meet pupils' specific aptitudes and abilities—words used by the hon. Gentleman.
The Government are offering a false prospectus in regard to choice. If parents had the choice, they would choose smaller classes, more books and equipment and teachers with much higher morale. I was disturbed to learn today from a report that the number of teachers retiring on grounds of ill health has almost doubled since the introduction of the national curriculum.
If the hon. Member for Romford is truly concerned about improving education and upbringing, perhaps he will ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education—the Lynda Snell of British politics—to end the constant stream of quick-fix gimmicks and concentrate

61
instead on investing in education, returning to the co-operation and partnership that should be the basis for it and ensuring excellence for all.
6.25 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am pleased to be able to speak, and privileged to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert)—a valued colleague in London politics—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Both are very sound on the topics that they have discussed at some length. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on his success in the ballot and his tabling of this important motion.
I want to concentrate on a specific part of the motion which caught my eye—the following words:
"That this House, recognising one generation's responsibility for the next".
The implication is that the House must seek to educate the next generation.
I have a particular interest in London politics. Inner London has now experienced four years of education without the unlamented Inner London education authority. Education in inner London has been conducted by the 12 new education authorities, three of which are excellent Conservative authorities; eight are Labour and one, in Tower Hamlets, is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. What we sought to do in the Education Reform Act 1988 in dispensing with ILEA, which had failed a generation of London children—if not two—is now coming to light.
For many years, ILEA had been at the bottom of the list of education authorities. That is why, following the 1987 general election, the Conservative Government sought to abolish it in that historic 1988 Act. Now, after four years of the new education authorities which came into being in 1990, we are seeing results. The three Conservative authorities—Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea—gained higher than average GCSE results, according to the 1993 tables, than their Labour and Liberal neighbours in the other nine inner London boroughs. The same Conservative authorities gained more A-level points per student than the Labour authorities, and many more than the Liberal Democrat authority in Tower Hamlets.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has given us some interesting statistics. Will he tell us what the equivalent performances were four years ago for those schools in Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea?
Mr. Tracey: The performance of those schools in the last years of ILEA was far worse than it is now. Their performances are far better now. As I shall explain later, there is a desire among parents in Labour authorities in inner London to move to neighbouring Conservative authorities across borough boundaries. That is causing problems. One is now far less likely to gain successful GCSE passes in the Labour and Liberal boroughs than in Conservative boroughs. If one lives in a Labour borough, one is 39 per cent. more likely to leave school with no GCSE passes. If one lives in a Liberal borough, the figure is 50 per cent. That proves why there was a real need for this generation of politicians to correct the iniquitous position that existed before.
Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the debate in the Chamber only a few minutes ago when the
62
Minister agreed with me about the vital importance of considering the issue of value added? In that respect, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Article 26 produced a value-added-based league table of local education authorities and that the position of Tower Hamlets rose dramatically to eighth in the entire country?
Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman is new to this House and he was not here at the time of the debates on the Education Reform Act 1988. We have heard all about the Liberals' value-added results and the word is that they have been massaged by the Liberal Democratic party to try to deceive the people of this country.
The claim that Labour authorities and Liberal Democrat authorities have a desire to spend more money on education than Conservative authorities, which seek to make cuts, is fallacious. The education spending of the Conservative authorities in inner London—Wandsworth, Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea—has totalled on average £14.01 million more than the Government have recommended. The Labour authorities, by contrast, have spent on average £5.82 million less than was recommended by the Government. The Liberals in Tower Hamlets—here is another figure that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) may wish to massage—have underfunded education by £18.46 million. That completely blows asunder the claim by the Labour and Liberal parties that they are committed to the education of our children. There is no evidence of that in inner London.
I am sorry to have to build on the pain of the Opposition parties, but the band D council tax charge in inner-London Conservative authorities is £171.67 less than in Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets, and £249 less than in Labour authorities in inner London.
The evidence of the quality of Conservative education in inner London has led to parents in surrounding boroughs wishing to move across the boundary line, as is their right, to seek a good Conservative education for their children. That has meant that 4,000 pupils from surrounding boroughs have come into Conservative boroughs in inner London. In Wandsworth, 2,255 pupils travel from Lambeth each day. That is an example of parents voting with their feet to seek a better education for their children.
My final argument relates again to people moving across borough boundaries. My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am about to raise with him one of the most serious issues of concern to parents in my constituency of Surbiton and in the education authority of the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. It relates to the Greenwich judgment in the High Court, which considered the situation that arose as a result of the break-up of the Inner London education authority. Parents in Lewisham wanted their children to have a better education and began to move them into Greenwich. Greenwich tried to stop them, and was challenged by parents in Lewisham. The High Court ruled that parents in Lewisham had the right to move their children to Greenwich.
My education authority is top of the GCSE league table. Parents in the education authorities that surround Kingston upon Thames—Richmond, Surrey, Epsom and Ewell and Merton—seek to send their children into Kingston upon Thames. We have two excellent maintained grammar schools—the Tiffin boys' school and Tiffin girls' school. Every year, about 1,000 parents from the surrounding

63
boroughs seek to gain entry for their children to those schools, but there are only 120 places available in each school.
There is a knock-on effect in that the other, non-selective schools in Kingston upon Thames find themselves under pressure from other parents in Kingston who are seeking places. The result is that some parents in my constituency feel that they are being denied a proper choice of school because, as a result of the Greenwich judgment, people are crossing the borough boundary to seek places for their children in our schools.
Parents, especially of girls, seek single-sex schools for their children. That is very true in relation to two schools in the royal borough of Kingston: Tolworth school in my constituency and Coombe girls' school in the Kingston upon Thames constituency, for which at any given time between 20 and 100 people are on the waiting list.
There is enormous frustration among those parents who believe that choice is being denied to them. My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Education will say that those parents can seek other schools, possibly in other boroughs, but the parents do not wish to do so. They say that if they live in the education authority with the best standards in the country, they should be able to send their children to those schools. They say that schools in surrounding boroughs are not so good.
That is the dilemma that they face. They live in a borough with a high standard of education. It is about time that there was true justice for those parents. The Government should consider this problem and ensure that my constituents are able to look after the generations to come by ensuring that their children have the best possible education.
6.39 pm
Mr. David Amess: One hundred and twenty years ago it was said:
"Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends."
They were the words of Benjamin Disraeli and they were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), another Essex man. I was especially taken by the part of my hon. Friend's motion which states that there must be
"resistance to harmful influences to which"
children
"are exposed".
The motion is in two parts: it refers to the education provided in our schools and to the education that we, as parents, give children at home.
I listened to the utterances of the two Opposition socialist parties, but heard no new ideas, and all their proposals would cost money. I do not believe that one necessarily has to spend more money in order to provide a better education. My children go to excellent state schools in my constituency of Basildon and I also went to an excellent state school.
Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend will be aware that more money is spent per pupil under this Government than at any time in our history. Is he satisfied that the taxpayer is getting value for money?
Mr. Amess: No, I am not. I hope that, when the two Opposition socialist parties are campaigning during the
64
local elections and when Mrs. Smith comes to the door and says that the tax changes are shocking and that she is worried about the changes in value added tax, the canvassers will be honest and admit that if they were in government, they would increase her taxes even further. However, I take my hon. Friend's point.
I was also worried by what I heard about nursery education. There are excellent pre-school playgroups in my constituency. They do a magnificent job, but they are worried about what is being said about nursery education. They do not wish their role in the education of our children to be usurped by new plans.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools has visited my constituency and will agree that standards are improving in all the schools there. Two years ago, the head of one of the seven secondary schools in my constituency criticised the league tables because he was worried that his school would be towards the bottom. He wrote a leading article earlier this year, praising the same league tables because he was delighted that his school now seemed to be climbing to the top. Of course, Chalvedon school in my constituency was the first grant-maintained school in Essex. I am delighted that, just a short while ago, it was announced that it is to be one of the 12 schools that are to have city technology college status. That is an excellent commendation of the wonderful education that children receive there. Standards in all schools in my constituency are improving; I have cited two examples in particular.
Langdon Hills special school is embarking on a project for children with special learning difficulties. The children are taught in small groups and, in the past 18 months, the schools has managed to achieve remarkable results. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will reflect on those results. In Basildon, we are especially concerned about dyslexia. Many parents worry when their children have special learning difficulties. Thanks to a wonderful lady called Christine Haggerty, groups of children with special learning difficulties are encouraged to participate in special programmes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) kindly referred to my clash with yobboes a few weeks ago. There is not time for the House to hear the details of the incident, but the vicar involved, whose wife is a schoolteacher, released my private letter to the press and it subsequently hit the headlines. I had written to him privately to say how shocked I was that a child of theirs could support the yobbo element that I and others had confronted. In this week's local paper, another local vicar has written in support.
Schools certainly have a very important job to do between 9 am and 3 pm, but the education of our children cannot be left to the schools alone. That is why I especially applaud the present Secretary of State for Education who, when he was first appointed, made a marvellous speech about partnership between schools and parents. What happens at home is also important. It is no good some parents leaving their children in front of the television or giving them computer games and expecting them to educate themselves. Unfortunately, not all children go to bed at 7 pm, even when they are told to do so. The general idea is that material that one does not want one's children to see is shown after the 9 pm cut-off point, but that is not always what happens. It behoves us all to ensure that children receive careful supervision.
One hundred and fifty years ago, a Prime Minister said:

65
"The Youth of a Nation are the trustees of Posterity"—
we must not fail them.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and thank him for enabling us to have this debate, which has been important and valuable for a number of reasons. It has reflected accurately the widespread concern about what is happening in society and what we can do about it—an important function of debates such as these. It has also set those concerns mainly in the context of education which, I believe, is correct.
It was instructive that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said the supportive things that he did. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting the great efforts that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have made to introduce new standards, especially in the vital spheres of religious education and collective worship. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby made no apology—one would not expect him to do so and, in acknowledgement of the nature of our society, nor should any hon. Member—for highlighting the importance of the established Church and of our established religion in providing a framework and point of reference for building what we want to build in our schools in terms of ethical and moral values. That is a point often repeated by the Secretary of State. His favourite phrase in this regard is that schools cannot and should not be value-free zones. In the past two years, that has very much been the message of my right hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford raised another important point, which was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and which is one that we must face directly. Whatever we do in terms of legislation and statute; whatever accountability we establish at school level to parents via governors; whatever independent inspection regimes we establish through the excellent work of the Office for Standards in Education; and whatever we ask of our teachers, headteachers and governors, all of whom are vital, in the end we always come back to the role that parents play.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that parents' role is to provide their children with a stable home and that they should therefore think twice before they divorce, bearing in mind the fact that divorce has a detrimental effect on children's development?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. I hope that all parents think about the effect on their children of anything that happens in the home or in the family. I am sure that in many cases—although not all and not enough—such considerations are paramount in parents' minds when they think about such matters.
The problem is this. The Government have been right to give parents a prime role in education, whether in terms of expressing a preference in school, playing a role as governors or whatever. We have encouraged their participation. However, with that goes an element of risk. The risk is that the children of parents who cannot or will not rise to the challenge and co-operate may be vulnerable; in some cases, that vulnerability will go beyond the children of those parents. That is very much our challenge
66
as a society. It is a responsibility which the Government must share, but which they cannot accept in totality. My hon. Friends' concerns so often come back to that point.
Let us consider, for example, the concerns rightly reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford about video nasties. I claim that we have gone a great distance, as a Government, to try to deal with the matter. An important role is played by the British board of control in establishing what videos are appropriate and suitable, and in which circumstances. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently introduced new and tough measures, which were widely welcomed in the House. However, when we come down to it, it must surely be the case that what is shown on video recording machines in people's homes can only be the responsibility of parents. Exercise whatever control we may, in the end we come back to that point again and again. With the best will in the world and providing the best framework in schools and in homes, we must face the fact that parents will ultimately determine the standards and responsibilities that are exercised in these important areas.
The same point probably applies in areas such as sex education, from which we have given parents the right to withdraw their children if they believe that that is appropriate. I believe that that was the correct thing for us to do, although I acknowledge that concerns have been caused in some quarters. One of the reasons for such concerns is that, although some parents may have views and beliefs, and may be willing to give their children what they regard as an appropriate sex education, most parents still look to schools to provide sex education in a proper way and within a proper framework of values.
In law, and through circulars and guidance, we have tried to encourage schools to provide sex education within the framework of values, ethics, standards and morality. I hope that the House will forgive me for so frequently quoting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As he said, schools must teach not just the plumbing, but the values, which must be built into all the guidance that we give our young people in our schools. That is essential and is part of what we are trying to do.
I believe that the very positive remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby reflect the real efforts that we have made in recent years to provide schools with the opportunity to give young people a framework, a sense of values and points of reference throughout the teaching that they receive, whether in the matter of daily collective worship and religious education, in the provision of sex education or in other elements of the curriculum. In the science curriculum, for example, schools impart knowledge to young people about drugs and other factors that can be damaging to their health. There are lessons that young people must learn about avoiding peer-group pressure and about avoiding substances that can be harmful to them. In all those ways, schools have a vital role to play. I hope that we are giving them the guidance, material and mechanisms with which to play those roles. However, yet again, if parents are not co-operative, not prepared to allow their children to receive that guidance in schools and not prepared to give teachers the backing that they need when they are trying their best to give young people that guidance, it is difficult to see what else can be done.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) made some revealing remarks, at which I shall look carefully. They gave us some interesting hints about his party's

67
attitude to certain elements of education, although there was some confusion in what he said. He gave credit to Sir Ron Dearing—I am grateful for that—for squaring up to the real problems that had emerged in the curriculum and in the testing regime a year ago, for coming forward with imaginative solutions and for providing something that could be widely welcomed and accepted, both by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and throughout education.
Having said all that, the hon. Member for Bridgend drew back somewhat, as a representative of, or adviser to, the National Union of Teachers, from condemning the NUT roundly in its desire, alone among the teachers' unions, to continue to threaten the disruption of education and of testing this year, even against the background of the progress that has been made thanks to the work of Sir Ron Dearing. I found that confusing.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I make it clear that the NUT whole-heartedly takes up the changes proposed in the Dearing review and wants them to be a success. I pointed out that the NUT had balloted its members who said that overall, they were not prepared to undertake this year's tests, but that they were prepared to take on the tests that were the outcome of the Dearing review. For my own part, I believe that all schools should look at the tests for this year and, if it is the wish of the staff, they should take them.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend. That is a helpful comment which, again, we shall wish to look at and consider; it may move us forward. I hope that the NUT will look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's words given his shadow responsibility for education; that may well be helpful.
It was regrettable that the hon. Member for Bridgend went on to imply that one of the ways in which he would fund his as yet unspecified commitment to nursery education would be by abolishing the assisted places scheme, which plays an important role in education and which allows access to excellent education for young people and parents who would not otherwise receive it. It is regrettable that the Labour party is prepared to be so destructive of something that has proved to be of such value and so popular among parents to fund an unspecified commitment to nursery education. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reckoned that the commitment fell far below anything to which he and his party aspired. However, I leave that matter for the hon. Gentlemen to sort out between themselves.
68
In a superb speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby brought to light a worrying discrepancy. Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, pointed out the excellent steps taken by so many schools to provide quality collective worship and religious education. On the other hand, there were the bizarre comments made recently by the National Association of Head Teachers. The general secretary of the NAHT said that it was somehow impossible to provide a daily act of worship in primary schools. That simply will not do and it illustrates a worrying trend among some teachers' unions and their general secretaries. They are prepared to come out with negative, unhelpful and destructive comments when so many of their members—in this case, head teachers—are working so hard to meet the demanding challenges set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to do what the law now requires. I hope that the House agrees that that is a matter of some regret.
Overall, the debate has been positive. It has highlighted a number of concerns, but it has also given us the opportunity to see the way forward in so many ways in the vital area of providing the correct value and moral framework within which our education must proceed. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have participated in and sat through the debate in such large numbers. I share the regret expressed by some of my hon. Friends that so few Opposition Members took the trouble even to attend the debate and that so few participated in it.
6.58 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: This has been a lively and spirited debate. Having listened to every word of it, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part. In particular, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who have contributed either by their speeches, by their interventions or just by their attendance and vocal support. It has been an interesting occasion. It has brought forward one or two developments and has revealed, especially in relation to the post-Easter conference position of the National Union of Teachers on testing, some new prospects of progress, which I hope may be achieved. I hope that, overall, we have served the interests of the next generation by debating these important issues today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, recognising one generation's responsibility for the next and the critical importance of young people's development to a stable, healthy and well-ordered society, calls on the Government to continue to encourage a wide diversity of choice in schooling, greater priority for the needs of children within the family and resistance to harmful influences to which they are exposed in the media and elsewhere.

Travellers' Allowances
6.59 pm
The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move,
That the Travellers' Allowances Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 955), a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
The order applies to duty-free goods for travellers arriving from outside the European Union. I hasten to make clear straight away that it does not apply to cross-border shopping in other European Community countries for tax-paid goods, or to purchases made in duty-free shops on journeys in the European Community.
The order does a number of things, but most importantly it implements the increase in what is known as the other goods allowance for travellers arriving in the United Kingdom from outside the Community. That allowance is for goods other than tobacco, alcohol and perfumes, for which specific and unchanged quantity limits exist. The increase in the other goods allowance from £36 to £136 was set in train by the United Kingdom during our presidency of the Community and was agreed eventually by member states at the Economic and Finance Council on 25 October 1993 to come into force on 1 January 1994.
There was a need for the European Parliament to be consulted and, as a result, the necessary European Community legislation did not go through fully until March. Therefore, Customs and Excise introduced the increase by extra-statutory class concession on 1 January 1994, so that travellers could benefit as soon as possible from the extra allowance in anticipation of the Community legislation.
We are also taking the opportunity to simplify allowances for the crews of ships and aircraft by bringing them into line with those of travellers. We are also correcting a few small anomalies in the application of the allowances, which in fact go back to before the United Kingdom's entry into the European Community. Those will finally bring us fully into line with European Community law, but will marginally restrict the relief.
In the first place, we are withdrawing relief from payment of duty and tax on part of an item with a value exceeding the allowance, or an item that pushes a group of items over the limit. We are also disallowing groups of people from aggregating their allowances to obtain relief on a single item of a value exceeding an individual allowance. I do not think that those changes will have a large impact because, of course, there is a large increase in the allowance itself—from £36 to £136—which will supersede that impact. In contrast, all travellers will benefit from the increased allowance.
The order also withdraws the entitlement to allowances from the crews of vessels and other travellers who do not land anywhere outside the European Community during the course of their journey. That will affect only a small number, such as the crews of some fishing vessels; those who visit a country outside the Community will, as I have said, benefit from the full travellers' allowances, with an increased, alcohol allowance, as well as a significant increase in the other goods allowance. We have also taken the opportunity to consolidate the legislation on such matters. If one consults the order in detail, it is apparent
70
that we are repealing no fewer than 11 orders, which were passed over a period of 25 years, and replacing it with the single order.
No doubt hon. Members will have noticed the note on the Order Paper to the effect that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments had not yet completed its consideration of the instrument at the time when it was put on the Order Paper. The Committee sought clarification of the explanatory note to the order, which mentioned travellers who land outside the European Community. It should, of course, have mentioned those who have travelled from outside the Community. There may be some who were born outside the EC and come here for the first time and therefore cannot be regarded as landing outside the EC and then returning.
That point made by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is obviously correct. We shall amend the explanatory note by means of a correction slip. When it is reprinted, if that should be required, we shall amend it in the text. That does not affect the order, which is, of course, drafted correctly as intended and as I have just described.
7.4 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The note on the Order Paper states that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed consideration of the statutory instrument. Since 1987, and between 1979 and 1983, the person who almost always got up in the Chamber to draw attention to the fact that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had not considered such orders was the late Bob Cryer.
A large number of hon. Members have paid tribute to Bob Cryer as an active hon. Member in the Chamber and a man of very strong principles and have paid tribute to the way in which he worked for his constituents, but few people have paid tribute to the way in which he worked ceaselessly as a member of the Select Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. He was a member of those Committees for 13 years, 11 years as Chairman. He was always in the Chamber to draw to the attention of the House the fact that statutory instruments such as the one before us had not gone through the scrutiny process completely. Although it is a technical point and the Minister has cleared up the point that concerned the Committee, it would be remiss of me or any Committee member not to put on record on behalf of those of us who serve on the Committee our appreciation of the friendship and diligence that he demonstrated both in Committee and in reporting its concerns to the House.
Therefore, I hope that the House will place on record its debt to Bob Cryer, a parliamentarian with extreme concerns that he expressed not only in the Chamber, but in Committee where he worked extremely hard.
7.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: May I begin by strongly endorsing the warm tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has paid to Bob Cryer—his work, his diligence and his energy in dealing with statutory instruments, as in other areas to which he brought his marvellous skills as a parliamentarian which we all greatly admired and so greatly miss. I thank my hon. Friend for paying that tribute, which I am sure is shared by all hon. Members.

71
The order is pretty uncontentious: I have neither received any hostile comment, nor seen any hostile comment in the press. As the Paymaster General has said, it increases duty-free allowances for excise and VAT purposes for travellers arriving from outside the EC to £136 from £36. The increase in allowances is welcome and, indeed, overdue. If anything, it is a pity that the allowances are not a little higher. I also note the extension of full allowances to aircraft and ship crews, which I dare say will be welcomed by those able to take advantage of them.
I have some questions and comments to put to the Paymaster General on the main change made by the order, which turns on the other goods allowance. First, what was the reason behind the withdrawal of the previously available offsetting facility to which he referred, which allowed relief on part of a more costly item? Does the withdrawal mean that someone arriving in the United Kingdom from outside the European Union with, for example, a camera costing more than £136—his only overseas purchase—would have no duty-free allowance? That seems to be the implication to be drawn from the order. That does not seem very fair.
Secondly, we are to see the ending of the practice of aggregation whereby family groups could pool their allowances against a single more expensive item. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain why the practice is to be brought to an end. He said that he did not think that it would cause too much difficulty because the level of the allowance is to be increased. He did not, however, provide any justification for the ending of the aggregation. Surely it is a facility which should be kept rather than dispensed with.
Thirdly, I take up the news release issued by Customs and Excise on 6 April, in which it is explained that the crews of a relatively few vessels—mainly Royal Navy and fishing boats, but also other travellers such as rig workers, who do not land anywhere outside the EC—will no longer be entitled to travellers' allowances. I hope that the Paymaster General will explain exactly who will be affected by this provision and why the present conditions have been changed.
The news release tells us that the changes will affect only a few vessels and other travellers. Bearing in mind that the new provisions bear on travellers working in hazardous occupations, it seems rather petty to take away a small but no doubt welcome compensation in the form of allowances.
Fourthly, the news release states:
"The practice of allowing an additional two litres of still table wine as an alternative to one litre of spirits or liqueurs over 22 per cent. volume or two litres of fortified sparkling wine or other liqueurs is withdrawn."
Is that not rather petty and somewhat ridiculous, given the millions of litres of still table wine now entering Britain, with low or no duty paid, from within the European Community? What is the justification for the change?
Fifthly, what steps are being taken by Customs and Excise, and carriers, to advise travellers of their allowances and prospective rates of duty when they are making their outward journeys from the United Kingdom? After all, one of the pleasures of overseas travel is the opportunity to shop for different goods at different prices from those generally available here. It would be a good idea to advise
72
people in advance about the rules and duties applicable on their return. Perhaps a leaflet should be printed setting out some examples. I am sure that the Paymaster General will let me know whether such advice is being made available and, if not, whether it could be encouraged.
Sixthly and finally, I cannot help noting that under the terms of the European agreement, from which the order originates, Germany was able to retain its existing limits for visitors entering from Poland and the Czech Republic. That would seem to contradict the principle of a common European policy. It will raise interesting issues if and when Austria and Finland join the European Community. I dare say that similar pressures will arise from the attraction of cross-border shopping elsewhere in central and eastern Europe.
The German Government's achievement in getting some measure of protection against the attractions of cross-border shopping on Germany's external European Union frontier stands in interesting contrast with Britain's inability to do anything about the haemorrhage of business in drink and cigarette sales from the United Kingdom to France on our internal European Union frontier. I know, as the Paymaster General stressed, that that has nothing to do with the order, but it is worth drawing attention to the German Government's success in securing a measure of protection on their external frontier.
I do not understand why people crossing from Poland to Germany should be subject to different rules from those that apply to people crossing from Croatia into Italy or from Bulgaria into Greece. I shall be grateful if the Paymaster General explains why the German exception is justified.
The Opposition do not intend to oppose the order. However, as I have said, I shall be grateful if the Paymaster General chooses to respond to my questions.
7.15 pm
Sir John Cope: First, I add to the tribute that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) paid to Bob Cryer, our former colleague. I knew Bob Cryer for a long time. From my experience at the Dispatch Box and in other capacities—I was in the Government Whips Office for many years, for example—I am aware of the excellent work that he did for the House, especially in the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I know from practical experience how difficult it is to find Members prepared to serve in some of the more complex areas of legislation and to undertake the difficult and detailed work involved in dealing with abstruse orders—especially in the context of European legislation—which come before us. There is no better example of someone who did that than Bob Cryer.
As the House will know, Bob Cryer was one of my predecessors for he was a Minister with responsibility for small firms. He was keen on steam trains and closely connected with the Keighley-Worth valley railway. All those interests endeared him to me, even if occasionally he made life a bit difficult or expressed opinions with which I did not agree.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked several questions. He suggested, in what I am sure was a slip of the tongue, that there were increases in the excise allowances as well as in value added tax allowances. In

73
fact, for ordinary travellers we have consolidated the excise allowances, but not increased them. It is the other goods that are affected by the main change set out in the order.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East said that the order was overdue. I entirely agree with him. We have been negotiating for some time to bring the order forward. The hon. Gentleman drew attention, perhaps inadvertently, to one of the reasons why it has taken so long to introduce the order. He talked about the problem that Germany has had with goods sold tax free for export finding their way back across the eastern border for sale in German markets. Eventually, the only way to resolve the problem was to agree to the derogation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The allowances are to be reviewed again in 1995. The hon. Member for Oxford, East said that they should have been a bit higher. We wanted them to be higher, and so did some other countries, but these matters are best agreed upon with the Community. The order reflects the agreement that we were eventually able to negotiate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about some of the small changes being made and gave the example of a camera. He is correct in his appreciation of the effect on travellers in the position that he described. He drew attention to aggregation and to the fact that crews of vessels that do not land anywhere outside the Community, though they may be at sea in international waters, will have their allowances withdrawn. The three points relate to the original European Community legislation, which was agreed before the United Kingdom became a member of the Community. It is right to come into line with that legislation by taking advantage of the opportunity presented to us. The offsetting and aggregation are matters of judgment. Is it better to have a rather higher allowance and no aggregation or to permit aggregation and have a lower allowance? That is a matter of judgment and I am prepared to agree to the system as it has existed in most Community countries, even before we joined.
With regard to vessels that do not land anywhere else, the provision applies to passengers—if any—of such vessels. There have been difficult cases of vessels that sailed outside territorial waters and passengers who had shopped for commodities then returned and avoided the duty on those goods. That is clearly not a practice which we would want to encourage, as it is a means of avoidance. We would not wish to set up arrangements that could promote such a possibility.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked how that change was being promulgated, particularly by the carriers and by Customs and Excise, for departing passengers. Posters, leaflets and official notices are available and are being distributed in departure lounges so that people can understand the position, if they wish to, before they leave for their holiday or their overseas visit. They will therefore be aware of the position when they return.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Travellers' Allowances Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 955), a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.

HMSO Trading Fund
7.21 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): I beg to move,
That the draft HMSO Trading Fund (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.
This order is essentially a technical accounting measure. It seeks to bring within the scope of the trading fund HMSO's growing business with public bodies overseas, chiefly in Europe, so that it can be handled in a more businesslike way. This overseas trading has hitherto been carried out on a token vote with the approval of the House. A token vote is a nominal sum, in this case £1,000, which allows much larger cash flows of income and expenditure to balance out over the accounting year.
The original trading fund order of 1980 did not envisage HMSO trading with customers based outside the United Kingdom. HMSO did, and still does, service overseas units of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and so on. HMSO's ambition to extend its customer base beyond the United Kingdom was approved by the House in 1991 when it authorised a new token vote to cover exploration of public sector markets overseas. The token nature of the vote meant that income and expenditure were required to balance out over the year so that there was no substantive effect on public expenditure.
The growth of HMSO's European business is now placing severe strain on the vote accounting arrangements. The requirement for income and expenditure to balance out over the year makes no provision for the working capital that is essential in any business. The time has now come to transfer the business from vote accounting to trading fund so that it can be handled in a more normal and businesslike way.
The order will permit HMSO to continue to develop its trading with public sector bodies in Europe and elsewhere on a businesslike basis. That will benefit British industry and the British taxpayer. En passant, by a strange coincidence of geography, the order will have a mildly beneficial effect on employment prospects in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). However, it is not primarily for that reason that I commend the order to the House.
7.23 pm
Mr. John Garrett: I have a strong constituency interest in the order because the largest single unit of HMSO is in my constituency and is a greatly valued contributor to the economy of the city of Norwich.
As the Minister said, the order enables HMSO to take greater advantage of its printing expertise and, by widening its ambit, to cover the public sector in the European Union and elsewhere overseas. As the Minister said, the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, which governs the financial arrangements of HMSO, excludes trading in areas that have not previously been financed by a vote under the supply procedure. This remedial measure corrects that anomaly.
To its credit, HMSO has already secured business from the French department of employment and the German post office. It has the capacity in its new state-of-the-art

75
passport assembly line to secure much more business in Europe. The order will enable HMSO to finance such business.
By any standards, HMSO has been an outstanding success since it gained trading fund status. The Treasury attempted to cripple it at birth, of course, by saddling it with a £50 million originating debt and a £20 million long-term loan. However, it has largely paid off the debt and now has a turnover of £400 million with sales per employee at a record £126,000 in 1993 and a current cost operating surplus in that year of more than £10 million. A profit of £22 million is planned for 1996. It has very high levels of achievement in customer satisfaction with very high service levels in print and publications deliveries.
However, it is far from clear why the order should be brought forward at this time, useful though it is.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does the Official Report cost £7.50? That is a tremendous sum of money. My hon. Friend has referred to HMSO's substantial profits, yet all the parliamentary publications are very expensive. Can my hon. Friend, or the Minister if he gets a chance, shed any light on that?
Mr. Garrett: I assume that it is predatory pricing. As so many institutions, such as universities and public libraries, have to take Hansard and Government publications, I guess that HMSO follows the Government's request for it to be profitable. It certainly puts profit before the provision of subsidised literature for the public. The Minister helps to set those objectives and no doubt he will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). My hon. Friend has made a very good point.
As I was saying, I cannot see why the order, useful though it is, has been brought forward at this time, because, at a time when HMSO is thriving, hanging over it is nothing less than a threat to its existence. I refer to the accountants' report on the commercialisation of HMSO—the so-called prior options report. I am told that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now has that report. That makes it even more odd that the order should be introduced before the report has been published.
I understand that the report sets out a number of options for the future of HMSO. It is feared in HMSO—for very good reasons—that there will be 1,000 redundancies in the next five years amounting to no less than one third of the staff. The Minister might give us some idea whether that fear has foundation; or does he intend to make his announcement in the summer recess, which is a typical shelter for bad news?
If HMSO is to be substantially damaged by the accountants' report, it would be another case of administrative vandalism by this Government. It is not clear why such a study was commissioned from commercial accountants—a practice rather different from prior options studies in other agencies—and particularly from commercial accountants who are unlikely to grasp the sensitivity of the security of parliamentary printing by HMSO.
I cannot see any reason to change the trading fund arrangements under which HMSO has been so successful. If a further distancing from Treasury restrictions is necessary, a sensible arrangement could be to establish
76
HMSO as a wholly-owned Government corporation. HMSO needs less messing about, particularly by market testing.
It is interesting that the Government follow two contradictory policies at the same time. One is to establish agencies under the control of fully accountable and fully responsible chief executives. I see that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the head of the civil service now try to make a distinction between accountability and responsibility, but it is one that will not bear scrutiny.
We have a chief executive of an agency such as HMSO being told to run the show as best he might and to the best of his ability and then he is told that he must market test or contractualise on a piecemeal basis many of the agency's activities for which he is supposed to be responsible. That is a direct conflict. Of course, it is the reason why Sir Peter Kemp was fired—he had a row with the Government's efficiency adviser. The Government's efficiency adviser was keen on contracting out and Sir Peter Kemp was keen on setting up agencies. The two were in conflict, so Sir Peter Kemp, a distinguished public servant, got the bullet.
The record of HMSO in market testing has been excellent, for example, in retaining the highly efficient Bristol distribution centre and the Basildon reprographic unit.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Garrett: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should say, "Hear, hear" when he is in favour of privatising HMSO. Shall I give way to him? I heard the hon. Gentleman applauding the efficiency of HMSO, but he is a supporter of privatisation.
Mr. Waterson: To clarify the position, I was saying, "Hear, hear" to the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "Basildon".
Mr. Garrett: That is forgivable because I am sure that we all react—
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw.
Mr. Garrett: I withdraw any aspersion that I may have cast on the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). I am happy to give way if he wants to make public his position on the privatisation, commercialisation and market testing of HMSO.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I was listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. Garrett: Once again, the hon. Gentleman cannot make up his mind.
As I said, HMSO has retained some important functions. The Government rule is that every market-tested activity must be market tested again in three years' time. That leads to management and staff who are in constant turmoil because they are always having to bid for their jobs or resist some hostile takeover. We know that after a short time a contractor who has secured and won a market test soon finds ways of putting up the price or gouging the client in some way.
Market testing is nothing new to HMSO—,75 per cent. of its goods and services are already purchased from the private sector. HMSO has an exceptional reputation as a

77
reputable supplier to the public sector and has regularly exceeded the financial targets set for it. It has reduced its staff by some 200, mainly through early retirement.
The staff are in the dark about the future of this successful organisation. In a poll of the staff, 86 per cent. wanted to know what the prior options study team was doing because they had never been told since it was set up. Privatisation had the support of a mere 6 per cent. of the staff. A future private bidder should bear in mind the staff attitude to outside control or ownership of HMSO, as should Tory politicians in the City and the country.
HMSO's years of operating as a trading fund have produced an innovative, go-ahead and commercial organisation. It has a bright future which should not be jeopardised by political dogma. However, until we hear what the future of HMSO is, I welcome this modest measure which will enable it to expand its overseas trading.
7.33 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall detain the House for a few moments to say a few words about the cost of Government publications and the effect of that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman will be out of order because that matter is outside the scope of the debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am looking at the explanatory note. I quote precisely what it says:
"The additional operations now to be financed by the fund are the procurement and production of printing and supply of stationery and office machinery and related services and the publication and sale of material in printed or other form for such bodies outside the United Kingdom as are of a like nature to those for which the HMSO Trading Fund already provides goods and services."
What I am about to say should fall broadly within the area that is identified in that part of the explanatory memorandum. I am dealing specifically with the cost of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to overseas matters.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is possible. The publication in my hand is available not only in the United Kingdom but overseas. Indeed, I imagine that under the present arrangements, if someone overseas wishes to purchase the publication which I am holding, which is a copy of the Official Report of last Friday's parliamentary debates, they would have to find a sympathetic Member of the United Kingdom Parliament and ask him to send it to them through the post, or, alternatively, they would have to subscribe directly to HMSO in London and thereby receive a copy of it.
I am interested in the costs that such people might be required to pay wherever they are within the European Community. I am especially interested in the fact that a high price for a publication of this nature effectively restricts—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is out of order. Unless he can stick to the order under debate, he must take his seat.
7.35 pm
Mr. David Davis: With the permission of the House, I shall start as best I can by staying in order and by answering the question of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the cost of HMSO publications. As I am sure he already knows, for many years the price of the Official Report was heavily subsidised. In 1983, when the subsidy stood at £6 million, the Government decided progressively to reduce the level of subsidy. HMSO is currently having a MORI survey carried out to see whether a reduction in the cost of the Official Report would lead to more purchases of it. I hope that that is of some help to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) started by paying a well-earned tribute to the operation of HMSO. There is no doubt in my mind that HMSO earned that tribute. The hon. Gentleman asked me why the order has been introduced now. The trade in Europe—certainly abroad—that is carried out by HMSO has grown in a few years from about £6,000 to nearly £500,000. As the hon. Gentleman, given his background, will appreciate, that creates a significant operating capital requirement which is difficult to meet within the remit of the current vote arrangements.
The order allows, frankly in the simplest way possible, HMSO to handle overseas trade in a more businesslike way. Of course, that brings benefits to HMSO, to the Norwich, South constituency and to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because it gives me an opportunity to say that, like the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), I welcome the order. May I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work of HMSO—[Interruption.] If I may be positive, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be negative all the time, I welcome the important work done by HMSO and by many of my constituents in Norwich, North in HMSO. I have had the opportunity to visit HMSO on a number of occasions. I should like to make this positive statement about the work that is done in Norwich by this excellent organisation.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes his case very well, as I would expect from an excellent constituency Member of Parliament.
In addition to the benefits to the direct areas, there are also benefits to British industry. Some 80 per cent. of the sales abroad come from British suppliers. The hon. Member for Norwich, South referred to the success of HMSO in market testing. He is absolutely right. HMS0 has a market testing programme which has saved it about £2.4 million—well over 20 per cent.—on what it addressed. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's comments, those savings led to no compulsory redundancies. Obviously there will be retirements and redundancies, but they are not compulsory, and that is beneficial.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the commercialisation study. The consultants' report which we have just received is extremely complex and refers to 18 different components of HMSO. It will take some time to study it, and I cannot at this point forecast when we will come to a conclusion on it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to rush it, particularly since we—as much as

79
he—place great importance on maintaining the high standard of service to the House. The public availability of official information will, of course, be safeguarded.
I commend the order to House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft HMSO Trading Fund (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.

CONSOLIDATION, &C., BILLS
Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Tracey be discharged from the Select Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills and Mr. Michael Bates be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

EMPLOYMENT
Ordered,
That Ms Angela Eagle be added to the Employment Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Alex Vail
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
7.40 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. It is a particular pleasure that the Minister of State will answer the debate, as, by a strange quirk of fate, he answered the debate in which I made my maiden speech a couple of years ago when he was in a previous incarnation.
As Members of the House, we are all used to holding regular surgeries. We deal with a variety of problems for our constituents; some serious, some less so. But in my two years as a Member of Parliament, I have not had such a depressing interview as that which took place in my surgery earlier this year.
I received a visit from Mr. and Mrs. Vaill, the father and stepmother of Alex Vaill. They told me of his tragic and early death. Alex was 23 when he died, and was much loved by his family. He enjoyed all types of sport including tennis, football and cricket. He excelled at school, and went on to read mathematics at Durham university. He was studying for his exams as an actuary when he was killed. He was due to get engaged.
In short, he was a talented, hard-working and responsible young man with his whole life stretching before him. Then, tragedy struck. On Friday 9 April last year, which happened to be Good Friday, Alex had been out for a couple of beers with a friend in Sutton, where he lived at that time. They left a pub in Sutton High street and dropped into a nearby McDonalds to buy some takeaway food.
Further down the street, they were accosted by a man called Graham Langley. He had obviously been drinking, and demanded that Alex Vaill give him one of his chips. This demand was politely declined, but that was not enough for Langley. Three eye-witnesses agreed that he was spoiling for some sort of incident. Alex and his friend began to walk away, and they were followed by shouted insults from Langley. He then attacked Alex and his friend, punching both of them to the ground.
Alex's skull was fractured and he was rushed to hospital. Four days later, he died peacefully after his family had agreed to turn off his life-support machine when doctors told them that there was no hope of his recovering. A young and blameless life had been snuffed out.
What of Alex's attacker? The contrast could not have been greater. Langley had a string of previous convictions, a number of them for violence. I understand that he was out of prison on licence at the time of this attack. Both in and outside prison, he was a keen body-builder and, as a result, is very powerfully built. People who have known him over the years in Sutton have contacted me to talk of his viciousness from an early age. You might ask yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what he was doing roaming our streets at all.
I cannot do much better than to quote from Langley's own defence counsel, who said:
"Mr. Vaill in his short life was a better man than the defendant has ever been or was ever likely to be."
I think that we can agree with that sentiment.
Langley was duly charged with the murder of Alex Vaill, and with inflicting grievous bodily harm on his companion. That seemed to be the appropriate charge. In

81
the ordinary way, one would have expected the imposition of a life sentence, although I shall have more to say about the effect of that later.
However, this was not to be. In due course, the Crown Prosecution Service accepted a guilty plea to the lesser offence of manslaughter. On Friday 25 February this year, Langley was sentenced at the Old Bailey to five years in prison. My understanding is that he is likely to serve only 30 months and, as he has been held in custody since April 1993, we may expect his return to our streets in September 1995.
There have been other recent cases that have raised this sort of issue. One will recall in particular the case of Jonathan Roberts, where a shoplifter killed his pursuer. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has asked me to associate him with my remarks this evening.
I need hardly dwell on the effect of all this on Alex's family. In Alex's father's words,
"the effect on our lives has been devastating. We are ordinary people, yet Alex was special."
He is sorely missed by his father, mother, stepmother, brother and sister. In short, the lives of his family and friends will never be the same again. Nor is this simply because of the natural process of grieving. They are also outraged and uncomprehending at the lightness of the sentence on Alex's killer.
The case raises a number of important questions about the workings of the criminal justice system. The first is whether the system of releasing prisoners on licence is being operated properly. Langley had a long record of violence and I should be interested to know what signs of remorse or of a change of character he showed which were sufficient to justify his release on licence. I am sure that the Minister will realise that if Langley had finished his full term, Alex Vaill would still be alive today. Recently, we saw that a number of convicted killers who were released from jail have gone on to commit 72 murders in this country in the past 30 years.
The second major question is the extent to which plea bargaining in such serious cases should be encouraged or permitted. The third question is the appropriateness of the sentence itself.
One of the first things that I did when I was made aware of this tragic case was to contact the Attorney-General to see whether there was any prospect of appealing against the sentence. The House will be aware that this Government introduced the possibility of the prosecution appealing against over-lenient sentences.
The matter was duly considered by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who duly wrote to me on 29 March this year. He said:
"It would only be in the most exceptional cases that it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that in throwing a single punch the defendant intended to kill or cause really serious harm."
Pausing there, it is interesting that an intent to cause "really serious harm" could be enough. In the event, Langley was sentenced also to two years to run concurrently for causing grievous bodily harm to Mr. Vaill's companion. I wonder whether this should have been a factor. The Minister may be able to enlighten me on that aspect also.
The Solicitor-General went on to say:
"A prosecution can only continue if there is a realistic prospect of conviction. There was no realistic prospect of convicting Langley of murder."
My hon. and learned Friend went on to talk about the advice of senior lawyers involved in criminal law, and said
82
that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 gives the Attorney-General the power, in certain cases, to appeal against over-lenient sentences.
He concluded:
"After very careful consideration, and in the light of the guidance given by the Court of Appeal for offences of this kind, I am unable to say that the sentence was so lenient that it fell outside the range of sentence available to the judge."
Subject to anything that my hon. Friend might say, it seems that I must accept the judgment of those more practised than myself in criminal law that it was appropriate to accept the plea of manslaughter.
The Solicitor-General went on to refer to the power under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and reached the conclusion that I have quoted. That was obviously a considerable disappointment both to me and to the Vaill family.
As I understand the position, what we are talking about is the so-called tariff for a particular crime. The Court of Appeal lays down guidelines for sentences appropriate for crimes based on their seriousness. A glance at Thomas's "Current Sentencing Practice" is informative. While it points out that the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life imprisonment, it sets out several cases similar to the Vaill case in which sentences range from seven years down to 12 months. On that basis, one has to accept that the sentence on Langley was well within the tariff range. But the question then arises whether the current tariff is appropriate.
I am told that one of the difficulties is that so-called life sentences nowadays mean an average of only 12 years incarceration. One can readily see the problem. The whole range of sentences is pushed downwards as a result. My hon. Friend the Minister knows my view that capital punishment should be reintroduced in certain circumstances. That is not the issue this evening. However, I believe that there is a growing case for making a life sentence mean what it says. That, in turn, would allow the range of lesser sentences for lesser offences to be pulled generally upwards.
Perhaps the truth is that we need to review our attitude to punishment. In the case of Regina v. Sargeant in 1974, the Court of Appeal laid down four principles to be applied in sentencing: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation.
Deterrence is naturally an important factor in any punishment. It is designed not only to deter the offender in future but to be an example to others who might be similarly tempted. Prevention must also be important so that the punishment can assist in protecting the public. At its simplest, locking away a persistently violent offender will at least ensure that he commits no further offence while inside.
I shall not dwell in detail on rehabilitation. In a sense, some of our problems stem from an over-emphasis on that aspect of punishment in recent years. Retribution is not simply a repetition of the old lex talionis, "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth". It means that the punishment should be proportionate to the harm done. The historical basis is the replacement of the self-help system in primitive societies, for example the vendetta, by systems of state-administered justice. In other words, the state can rely on the support of its citizens for its criminal justice system only if it imposes sentences that take account of the natural desire of those citizens for retribution.

83
An extreme example of a case that cried out for the highest penalty was the moors murders. As Lord Justice Denning, as he then was, said in 1953:
"The punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else … the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent, but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime".
Another quotation is from Justice Cardozo in his "Selected Writings". He said:
"The thirst for vengeance is a very real, even if it be a hideous thing; and states may not ignore it until humanity has been raised to greater heights than any that have yet been scaled in all the long ages of struggle and ascent".
Whatever the reasons for it, I have little doubt that the sentence of five years for the unprovoked killing of Alex Vaill is inadequate. Nothing will persuade me to the contrary. There is something rotten in the state of British justice when sentences of this absurd leniency are meted out by judges for the crime of snuffing out innocent life. There is a natural sense of outrage felt by individual citizens when they read of such cases. For them, justice has not been seen to be done.
The Government have rightly pledged themselves to redress the balance of the scales of justice away from the criminal back towards the victim. Patently, in cases like this, we have not yet fully succeeded. We must give judges the powers that they need so that tough sentences are seen to be the norm for vicious acts of extreme violence. Society needs to know that the punishment will fit the crime, and when a life sentence is imposed, it must mean exactly what it says. I fear that if we do not tackle these serious issues soon, the support of the ordinary citizens of Britain for the law will ebb away.
7.54 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I should like to start, if I may, by offering my condolences to Mr. Vaill's family. Nothing that I can say here will compensate for their tragic loss or for the suffering that they have endured. They have my deepest sympathy and, I am sure, that of every Member of the House. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, as a Minister of the Crown, I cannot comment on the decisions taken by the various parties involved in this case, or on the sentence passed by the court.
What I can attempt to do tonight is to explain the way in which the law works in homicide cases and to assure the House and those outside that the Government are determined to do what they can to ensure that those whose action leads to another's death are dealt with appropriately.
As my hon. Friend will know, under our law there are two distinct homicide offences—murder and manslaughter. Both offences cover actions that result in the unlawful death of another person. The purpose of having two separate offences is to cover different degrees of culpability. Murder is, in our view, a unique offence and it carries a mandatory life sentence as a result. My hon. Friend knows my view; I approve of capital punishment for those found guilty of murder.
The law requires that for a conviction for murder, there must be an intention to kill or to do serious bodily harm. That is a high threshold of intention, and rightly so. I can
84
well understand the strength of feeling of those who have lost loved ones through the actions of another; where the action has been deliberately taken with the intention to kill or seriously injure, the perpetrator is rightly called a murderer and, in the absence of capital punishment, that murderer could spend many years or, indeed, the rest of his life in prison.
But many deaths are not legally murder and cannot be charged as such. If murder is not the appropriate offence, the law on manslaughter becomes relevant. There are two broad categories of manslaughter. The first covers cases where there was an intention to kill or do serious harm, but the culpability of the act is reduced on grounds of provocation or diminished responsibility. In such cases, a conviction for manslaughter is possible and the sentence is left entirely in the hands of the trial judge.
The second category covers cases in which death follows a person's actions, but there was no intention to kill or do serious harm. For a conviction of manslaughter within this category, it is necessary to prove that death is the result of an unlawful act which a reasonable person would think would put the victim at the risk of some harm—not necessarily serious harm—or it must be the result of an act of gross negligence.
Where a person commits an assault, without intending to kill or do serious bodily harm, and his victim dies as a result, it is clear in law that manslaughter, not murder, is the offence for which he is liable. I am sure that that is a sensible path for the law to tread. It is not that the law excuses assaults or undervalues the innocent victim's life. However, it would be impossible to justify treating as murder cases in which death was an unforeseen and, on any reasonable and objective view, an improbable consequence.
Taking that as a sensible starting point for the definition of the offence is not to imply that some manslaughter cases will not still involve a high degree of culpability on the defendant's part and deserve long custodial sentences. The loss of any life is always serious. It is simply that the unintended consequences of an unlawful act cannot be the only measure of seriousness. Indeed, as a matter of natural justice, they should not be the principal measure.
It is worth studying the matter from another perspective and considering an example. Let us take an example of a person luckily escaping a deliberate attempt on his or her life—the bullet just misses its target, or the assault occurs only minutes away from a major hospital, which saves the victim's life. That is still attempted murder and the perpetrator should not be treated with leniency as a result. Of course not. We are rightly concerned that the sentence should reflect the evil of what the perpetrator intended to do.
The same principle applies when the consequences of an unlawful act go far beyond their intention or a reasonably foreseeable outcome. The recent Scarlet case involved a licensee who pushed a drunk out of his pub. The drunk fell, cracked his head and died. The licensee had no intention of killing and nor could he reasonably foresee that a push would result in death. He was rightly not charged with murder.
The penalty passed by a court for manslaughter depends on a wide variety of circumstances. The maximum penalty, which reflects the seriousness of the worst cases, is life imprisonment, but there is no mandatory sentence and nor—quite properly—is there any certainty of imprisonment in every case. The courts will consider carefully the

85
circumstances of the case when deciding the right sentence. They should consider the defendant's intentions and what he could reasonably have foreseen, as well as the consequences of his actions.
I stress to my hon. Friend and to the House that sentencing in each case is entirely a matter for the courts, within the limits set by Parliament and the common law. It is not for me, any other Minister or the Executive. It is not the Government's business to comment on what the courts do in that respect. Clearly, it is important that sentencing is consistent and informed by a reasonable and defensible philosophy. The courts, including the Court of Appeal, over time have naturally established a range of precedents and guidelines for types of cases, attempting to apply just such a consistent approach.
Of course, the courts must be responsive to public opinion and, from time to time, their approach will change as a result. If we were seriously asking them to forgo a fundamental reliance on intention as a prime measure of seriousness, it would be a matter for Parliament to decide. We are not saying that, and nor did my hon. Friend intend to ask for it. The Government do not intend to make that sort of change.
We must recognise that judges are not infallible either. Where an unduly lenient sentence is passed in a serious case, we have provided a power—to which my hon. Friend referred—for the Attorney-General to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. In such cases, that court may quash the original sentence and substitute a higher one. Many hon. Members will be aware of cases in which that power has been used to the satisfaction and reassurance of the public.
Whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He must take into account the guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal in similar cases. Only if he is able to conclude that the sentence is unduly lenient—that is, that it falls outside the range of sentences that a judge could reasonably consider appropriate in all the circumstances—can he apply for leave to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. My hon. Friend referred to that in his speech and rightly pointed out that my right hon. and learned Friend had concluded that the sentence was not outside that range of guidance.
There is a good deal of information, much of it recent, about the courts' attitude to manslaughter. Seven such cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and one in Northern Ireland. In five cases, the sentences were increased, in two they remained the same and one case is outstanding.
However, it is not for the Executive to take over the Court of Appeal's role in establishing the proper levels of sentencing within a legal maximum. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and believe that judges would be well advised to listen to his wise words and take more notice of public concern. People want to see justice done and they want the sentence to fit the crime.
Above all, the public agree with my hon. Friend and the Court of Appeal that every sentence should have an element of retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. We can now enable the court to consider
86
cases that would have been barred from going to it. The opportunities for the Court of Appeal to act as a regulating body have increased considerably as a result, to the benefit of the system.
Finally, my hon. Friend sought my views on several issues. First, he was concerned about the system for releasing prisoners on licence. I understand that Mr. Vaill's attacker had been released at the end of a previous sentence —not as a result of a decision to release him early—which had been passed before the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force. Since that Act, any person serving more than 12 months is required to undergo a period of supervision on release. They can also be required to serve the remainder of their original sentence in prison if they commit a further crime before it has expired. If they are sentenced to four years or more, their release can be delayed until the two thirds point of their sentence, if the parole board so decides. For prisoners serving seven years or more, that decision rests with the Home Secretary. Again, they are supervised on release until the three quarters point of sentence and the remainder can be reactivated in the event of further offending.
The Prison Service cannot detain a person beyond the authority that a sentence passed by the court confers, but the 1991 Act allows the court to pass a custodial sentence in a sexual or violent case purely on the basis that it is necessary for the protection of the public and, on the same ground, to pass a longer sentence than the seriousness of the offence requires.
My hon. Friend was also concerned about what he referred to as "plea bargaining". The Crown can properly accept a plea on the basis of the available evidence, thus sparing victims and witnesses the ordeal of a trial, but that is not plea bargaining and the Crown Prosecution Service will, as a matter of policy, prosecute the most serious offence that the evidence will support.
Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned Langley's simultaneous conviction for an assault on Mr. Vaill's companion. I can tell him that the charge in question did not require an intent to do grievous bodily harm, but only an intent to do some harm and that really serious injury resulted. The maximum penalty for such an offence is five years' imprisonment.
To sum up, we should not expect murder convictions every time a person is killed by an assault. That is not the law of Britain and we have no plans to make it such. Sentencing in manslaughter cases is quite properly a matter for the courts and the full range of punishments, up to life imprisonment, are available to them. The courts face difficult issues in cases of this kind and their judgments will inevitably be a source of disappointment to some people. No relatives who have lost a loved one can ever be satisfied, understandably, with the sentence on the attacker.
Taking those tough decisions, which we ask the courts to do, is a task for the courts alone, within the framework that Parliament and the common law provide. We have no plans to change that general situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eight o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Pharmaceutical Injury Claims
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total net cost of providing legal aid to those people making pharmaceutical injury claims for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many pharmaceutical injury claims were made in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Independent/Not known

  Birmingham

  217

  139

  58

  96

  Coventry

  84

  72

  33

  45

  Dudley

  103

  53

  25

  31

  Sandwell

  149

  93

  29

  19

  Solihull

  64

  17

  9

  52

  Walsall

  68

  51

  30

  27

  Wolverhampton

  68

  23

  15

  45

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table contains the best information available. The number of private security firms and guards employed over each of the past 10 years has been estimated on the basis of the information that we have.

  Year

  Estimated number of firms

  Estimated number of guards

  Total cost

  £

  1984–85

  1

  9

  135,900

  1985–86

  3

  17

  248,700

  1986–87

  4

  29

  376,500

  1987–88

  5

  31

  592,625

  1988–89

  7

  64

  687,275

  1989–90

  6

  72

  1,037,536

  1990–91

  9

  107

  1,226,940

  1991–92

  10

  132

  3,063,651

  1992–93

  10

  175

  3,069,785

  1993–94

  10

  281

  4,430,286

  Totals

  65

  917

  14,869,198

  2
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many pharmaceutical injury cases were commenced through the small claims courts in each year since 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of all personal injury claims were accounted for by pharmaceutical injury claims in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Magistrates, West Midlands
  Mr. George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the political balance of magistrates in each of the districts within the west midlands county.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The political balance of magistrates in each of the districts within the west midlands county, on the latest information available, is as follows:

TREASURY

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many regular publications he was responsible in
  1993–94; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Sir John Cope
  The departments and agencies for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible issue a large number of publications each year. Detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National Debt
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the national debt of central Government in(a) December 1990 and (b) at the latest available date; and what is the level projected for 31 March 1995 on current trends.

  Mr. Portillo
  A detailed breakdown of total debt of the public sector, including central Government, at end-financial year from end-March 1984 to end-March 1993, is given in table S1 of the March 1994 edition of "Financial Statistics". Central Government debt data at end-calendar year are not available.
  3
  Forecasts of total central Government debt are not made, but forecasts of net public sector debt and general Government gross debt appear in table 6.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994" published last November.

  Excise Duties (Alcohol)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the payments of excise duties on alcohol to the Treasury for 1991, 1992 and 1993; and what effect the recent change in the date of collection has had on the revenue collected.

  Sir John Cope
  Receipts of excise duty on alcoholic drinks totalled £4,936 million in 1991 and £5,103 million in 1992. Receipts of £5,100 million in 1993 are estimated to have been some £200 million lower than otherwise due to the change to end product duty for beer.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is considering in order to rectify the alleged deficiencies and inaccuracies in the Government's United Kingdom trade statistics, and described in "UBS Global Research Economic Briefing" dated 21 March; and if he will make a statement, with particular reference to the amount of(a) last year's current account deficit, (b) the United Kingdom's 1993 invisibles surplus and (c) export and import volumes to the EC.

  Sir John Cope
  Details of investigations into the quality of the visible trade statistics, particularly on our trade with other European Community members, were given in the replies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 8 February,Official Report, column 121–22 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 21 March, Official Report, column 21. The Central Statistical Office has since announced that it aims to release preliminary findings on 12 May.

  On invisibles, the CSO believes that the published estimates of net investment income are the best available. The Union Bank of Switzerland analysis raises a number of interesting issues, most of which have already been investigated. The CSO does not accept that there is an error of the size or in the direction suggested. The CSO is always looking for ways of improving its procedures and, as announced in its programme strategies released on 19 April, has a continuing programme to improve this and other parts of the balance of payments statistics. There have already been major improvements in recent years with a progress report published in "Economic Trends" in December 1992. Balancing items—errors and omissions —have been very much smaller in recent years.

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, columns 424–25, (1) what has happened to the tiger products seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise;

  (2) if he will provide names and addresses of importers attempting to bring tiger products into the United Kingdom;
  4
  (3) what prosecutions have been concluded or entered against those attempting to import tiger products into the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  The seized tiger derivatives listed in my previous answers were either destroyed or have been retained by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for display and training purposes. In the cases in question, there was no suggestion of deliberate evasion of the endangered species controls. The importers were not prosecuted and it would be inappropriate to provide their details.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Vandalism
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs involved for repairing damage resulting from vandalism by prisoners at each prison in England and Wales in each of the past five years.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. John McFall, dated 25 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the costs of repairing damage resulting from vandalism by prisoners at prisons in England and Wales in each of the past five years.
  Our records do not show what proportion of general expenditure on works and repairs (which amounted in each financial year from, and including, 1988–89, to £103.8 million, £107.4 million, £111.8 million, £122.5 million to £94.0 million) was incurred on repairs of damage caused by vandalism by prisoners.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he expects to make in licensing restrictions and hours in pubs and night clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill provides for a system of children's certificates for suitable bar premises in England and Wales. Action on other proposals for liquor licensing reform following the consultation paper on this subject which we published in March 1993 is under consideration.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the system introduced on 1 April for the formal training of project licence applicants under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  From 1 April 1994 applicants for personal licences will be required to have completed successfully an accredited training programme. In addition to this, from 1 April 1995, those project licence applicants seeking a project licence for the first time will require further pre-licensing training to be acquired from accredited training programmes. Home Office policy on
  5
  education and training is set out at appendix IV of the "Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1992" (Cm 2301).

  Tuberculosis (HM Prison Holloway)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at HM prison Holloway have been diagnosed as having tuberculosis; and in how many cases it has been judged that infection took place while in custody.

  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 25 April 1994:
  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 tuberculosis cases that have been diagnosed in Holloway prison, and whether it is judged that the infection was contracted in custody.
  The health care centre records show that four prisoners at Holloway have been diagnosed as suffering from tuberculosis; two were diagnosed in 1992 and two in 1993. None of these prisoners was considered to be at the infectious open pulmonary stage of the disease and the indications are that none could have contracted the disease while in custody.

  Diver Mist
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which civil and emergency authorities will participate in the Diver Mist nuclear weapons accident exercise on 18 to 22 April in East Anglia.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The exercise took place at Barnham in Suffolk. The relevant police, fire, ambulance, health and local authorities participated, in addition to local representation from central Government Departments.

PRIME MINISTER

  Classless Society
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress he has so far achieved towards his objective of a classless society.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policies are aimed at widening choice and opportunity for all members of society. Significant progress has been made in achieving this aim through the reforms in education and health, through training and enterprise councils—which are providing greater opportunities to obtain vocational skills and qualifications, including the introduction later this year of prototypes for modern apprenticeships—and through other public service initiatives, such as the continued development of the citizens charter and the recent changes in the honours system.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of special advisers employed by Government; what restrictions are imposed upon party political aspects of their duties; and what plans he has to introduce new guidelines or regulations relating to their role.
  6
  The Prime Minister
  There are two categories of special adviser: political advisers, who assist Ministers with that part of their work which is partly governmental and partly political, and expert advisers, who complement advice given to Ministers by their Departments with that drawn from their particular professional fields and expertise. In the course of their duties, advisers are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants. Special advisers are bound generally by the rules on political activity applicable to civil servants, with specific exemptions. They may, with the approval of their Minister, attend party functions and maintain contact with party members, and take part in policy reviews conducted by their party. In addition, and also subject to approval by their Minister, special advisers are allowed to undertake all forms of local political activity, apart from local activities in support of national political activities. I have no plans to introduce new guidelines or regulations relating to their role.

  D-day Anniversary
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations his office has had from the Royal British Legion in regard to the arrangements being made by the Government to mark the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings; what reply has been sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 April 1994]: The Royal British Legion has written to my office about the 50th anniversary of the end of world war II and was sent a full reply on 21 April.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Water Quality (Exhibition)
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to water quality and value 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 3 to 7 May.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Foodstuffs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom come ready packaged for retail sale.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not available as packaged foodstuffs are not separately identified in the standard international trade classification.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts are being made by the British Government to encourage those countries of the former Soviet Union and the eastern bloc who have not done so to sign the Vienna convention on civil liabilities for nuclear damage or to
  7
  agree waivers of liability with British companies involved in upgrading their nuclear reactors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of eastern European countries have recently joined the Vienna convention and more are in the process of doing so. In recent visits to Bulgaria and Russia, a senior official of my Department has raised the matter. Until those countries have a sound legal framework for civil liability, we support the development of indemnity agreements. The European Commission is at present negotiating with the Governments of Russia and Ukraine to indemnify European contractors under the EU nuclear safety assistance programme.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since 1990.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The following Acts of Parliament that affect local government have been introduced by this Department, including the Department of Energy, since 1990:

  The Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991

  The European Economic Area Act 1993

  The Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

  The Timeshare Act 1992

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Over the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1994, there have been 119 parliamentary questions which my Department has not answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information was not held centrally. The remainder of the question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Energy Review
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 April,Official Report column 226, what representations he has received as to the effect of the timing of his announcement of the nuclear energy review on the forward planning of the nuclear industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a number of representations about the timing, format and scope of the nuclear review from hon. Members, the nuclear industry, members of the public and other interested parties.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to announce the next round of offshore oil and gas licensing on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
  8
  Mr. Eggar
  Following the success of the 14th round, announced two years ago, I am today announcing the 15th round of offshore licensing. I am also taking the opportunity to invite nominations for the 16th round. This represents a new approach to licensing with different rounds reflecting the different stages of exploration reached in the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  The overall objective remains that of encouraging exploration in the UKCS so that new fields are discovered and development continues for at least another 25 years. In order to ensure that the UKCS remains a competitive oil province, I will be expecting applicants for licences to demonstrate their commitment to competitiveness, innovation and cost reduction.

  The acreage announced today makes up the 15th round. This comprises all available unlicensed acreage in the southern basin and in the central North sea. The intention of the round is to encourage early exploration in the gas prone areas. In this way, new gas discoveries can be tied into existing infrastructure.

  I want to see this acreage explored quickly, with commitments from companies to early drilling in the blocks awarded. I am therefore seeking applications by 26 July with a view to announcing awards this autumn. I am very keen to see new gas developments going ahead. This "fast track" round should enable companies to make early progress. It is my intention that licensing opportunities in the more established areas should be offered, like this, on a regular basis in future.

  I am also seeking nominations from oil and gas companies for blocks which they would like to see offered in the 16th round. This round will cover areas around the coast of Britain and to the north of Scotland. Nominations will be required by 26 July.

  Many of the blocks in the 16th round will be in areas of environmental sensitivity or in areas where the interests of other users of the sea need to be taken into account. As in previous rounds, special conditions will need to be attached to a number of the blocks in those areas. Those conditions will be agreed with other Government Departments and with other bodies such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee following nominations. Where blocks are in sensitive areas, I plan to ask applicants to address the environmental concerns identified in relevant surveys.

  A second announcement, in the autumn, will give details of the blocks offered in the 16th round. As well as blocks nominated by companies, the round will include established acreage in the northern North sea. Any special conditions attached to individual blocks will be available at the time of this, later, announcement. In order to give time for companies to undertake the necessary preparation, applications for the 16th round will be required in March 1995 with a view to announcing awards in the summer. I will also use the second announcement to indicate my plans for a round of acreage in frontier areas, the 17th round.

  I will publish tomorrow in the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette and on Friday in the Belfast Gazette, a formal announcement giving the detailed financial terms for the 15th round, including the format of applications, the information required and the basis on which awards will be made. I shall place in the Libraries of both Houses copies of this formal announcement.

  British Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial support he will be making to British Coal to fund redundancy payments after 30 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: Subject to the approval of the House to the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994 laid on 21 April, the Government will provide restructuring grant under the Coal Industry Act 1987 to meet 90 per cent. of the cost of eligible expenditure related to the redundancy of British Coal Corporation employees.

  Haulage Vehicles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact on the haulage contracting businesses of the decision of insurance companies not to cover haulage vehicles and their contents if parked overnight within the M25 or in the major metropolitan areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The DTI has made no such assessment.

  EC Structural Fund
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the implementation of objective 5b of the European Community's structural funds in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Council regulations allow the member states three months from the date of the decision on eligibility, 26 January, to draw up and present to the Commission plans describing the uses to which it is intended to put the funds' grants. For this purpose, the United Kingdom's objective 5b areas will comprise 11 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)

  South West England

  219

  Shorps/Herefordshire/Worcestershire

  40

  Staffordshire/Derbyshire

  12

  Northern Uplands

  108

  Lincolnshire

  53

  East Anglia

  60

  Borders of Scotland

  30

  Dumfries and Galloway

  47

  Central Scotland/Tayside

  25

  Grampian

  39

  Rural Wales

  184

  Total United Kingdom objective 5b

  817

  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 framework will then govern the allocation and use of the funds' grants.

  Only after the Community support frameworks have been negotiated and adopted can detailed decisions be taken on projects to receive grant.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to create a charter to cover the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; and if he will make a statement on the opportunities citizens have to seek redress from the ombudsman where they believe the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner has failed to investigate a complaint in a timely fashion.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to create a charter to cover the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, as I have no responsibility for his work. The Parliamentary Commissioner's remit is governed by the terms of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. He is responsible to Parliament, via the Select Committee, and not to Ministers.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total level of compensation paid out by Government Departments in redress of complaints made via the ombudsman in financial year 1993–94; and if he will list all payments made amounting to over £5,000.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not held centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's annual report for 1993, which contains details at appendix A of compensation paid following individual investigations completed during the 1993 calendar year. Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Peacekeeping Initiatives
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy initiatives he has proposed or he intends to propose to improve the quality of UN peacekeeping initiatives.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom replied to the Secretary-General's request for recommendations from member states on ways to improve peacekeeping in July 1993. A copy of this reply has been placed in the House Library. A number of these recommendations were taken up in the Secretary-General's March 1994 report on peacekeeping, a copy of which has also been placed in the House Library.

  Departmental Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon: Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) of 12 April,Official Report, column 14, if he will give a breakdown of the estimated total cost of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building at King Charles street; and what considerations led him to give priority to expenditure of such a magnitude on the work.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Before 1988, partial refurbishment of the Foreign Office main building—Old Public Offices—was carried out by the Property Services Agency, funded from its overall provision for maintenance of the civil
  11
  estate. It is not now possible to quantify that expenditure. An investment appraisal in 1987 showed that it would be less expensive completely to refurbish the grade I listed building than to provide new accommodation for the FCO. It had not been refurbished since being first occupied by four separate Departments of State in 1875.

  Responsibility was transferred from the PSA to the FCO in 1988. Expenditure has been incurred as follows:

  Year

  £

  1988–89

  5,453,170

  1989–90

  7,580,608

  1990–91

  8,483,080

  1991–92

  12,973,778

  1992–93

  11,150,596

  1993–94

  12,564,053

  Total

  58,205,285

  The estimated out-turn for 1994–95 is £7.5 million.

  Design work is proceeding on the final phase, which is provisionally estimated to cost about £20.3 million, including works, resources and VAT, over the 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 financial years. On completion, the building will provide modern office accommodation, meeting health and safety and fire requirements. It will also provide 25 per cent. more office space, allowing leased buildings to be given up, thus reducing future running costs and improving operational efficiency.

  Greece
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the stance of Greece in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation action against Bosnian Serb positions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Greece formally dissociated itself from the 9 February NATO decision on Sarajevo. However, it remains supportive of NATO's provision of close air support to UNPROFOR.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current relations between Greece and Serbia; and what assessment he has made as to the extent to which those relations are compatible with Greece's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation membership and with European Union policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our policy to comment on relations between other states.

  European Human Rights Court
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the permanent right of individual application to the new single court that will replace the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights; what factors led to the adoption of this policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 19 April,Official Report, column 457.

  Russia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed British interests in Transcaucasia with the Russian Government; what is his view of Russian intentions towards the so-called Chechen Republic; and when he last discussed the situation in the northern Caucasus with the Russian Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Moscow in February he discussed a wide range of issues with members of the Russian Government, including the internal situation in the Russian Federation and Russia's relations with her near neighbours.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the situation in Bosnia with President Yeltsin; and what were his conclusions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We remain in close contact with the Russians about the situation in Bosnia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not spoken in person to President Yeltsin recently, but he has discussed recent developments with Foreign Minister Kozyrev.

  Lin Qi Qun
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 1020, with regard to Lin Qi Qun, wife of Mr. Chiu Hung Ing of 1 Princes parade, Manchester, when he intends to reply to the letter sent to him by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs does not appear to have received the right hon. Member's correspondence on this matter, except for a letter dated 26 October 1993 to which he replied on 10 November. My officials have asked for copies. We shall then look into this matter and write to the right hon. Member as quickly as possible.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how many regular publications he was responsible in 1993–94; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is responsible for a wide range of publications. A list of 93 publications is included on page 101 of the FCO departmental report for 1994 (Cm 2502), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. In addition, over 150 publications on aspects of Britain are produced each year, in various languages, for distribution by posts abroad.

  To provide details of all the assorted circulations would be disproportionate to the time and cost involved. Most publications are distributed free. A few are available by subscription and others can be purchased from HMSO.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Foreign Office is represented in Rwanda and Burundi; and what action his representatives have been taking to alleviate distress and hardship for British and other citizens in these countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We no longer have representation in Rwanda. The honorary consul in Kigali was evacuated, with other British nationals, from Rwanda during the week beginning 10 April. The contingency arrangements with the Belgians worked well.

  Currently we have no representation in Burundi. Nominally the protection of British nationals there falls to the British high commissioner in Kampala. However, British nationals seeking emergency assistance in any country where we have no permanent representation can contact the diplomatic mission or consular post of any European Union member state.

  Bosnia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have pledged troops to Bosnia as a result of the United Kingdom's initiative which have so far not yet arrived; and what are their estimated dates of arrival.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations has received offers of 7,717 troops following our lobbying exercise. Of these, Security Council authority exists only for a further deployment of 5,802 troops. So far British—905—French—300—and Spanish—170—contingents have been deployed. The deployment of Russian—300—and Ukranian—555—contingents are in train, the Swedes—165–are expected to deploy in early May and the Pakistanis—3,000—are expected to deploy in July. We have no information about the deployment of the remainder.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Commissioners' Assets
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement giving details of the steps that have been taken by the commissioners, and are proposed, following the decrease in value of the commissioners' assets.

  Mr. Michael Alison
  The Commissioners' board of governors has taken a number of steps to strengthen the commissioners' financial management and accountability. The board's actions come as a direct result of the recommendations of the Lambeth report and are part of a vigorous process, overseen by a steering group of the board, to address all the issues raised in it.— The board has strengthened its relationship with the commissioners' assets committee through general rules under which the assets committee is to work. These rules offer direction and guidance to the assets committee and reinforce the link between the two bodies. They provide, among other things, for the assets committee to review, at least annually with external professional advice, asset allocation and investment performance and for the committee to report quarterly to the board.
  14
  — An Audit Committee has been established. Alan McLintock CA, chairman of the Church's central board of finance, is chairman and Derek Fellows, FIA is a member, neither are commissioners, thus ensuring the independent membership recommended by the Lambeth report. The committee is responsible, among other things, for considering matters relating to the audit and for reviewing the effectiveness of internal management controls, the implementation of investment policies and decisions and accounting policies and practices.
  — In January the commissioners appointed a new deputy secretary, finance and investment.
  — The firm of DTZ Debenham Thorpe has been appointed as independent valuer for the commercial property portfolio. The commissioner acknowledge that their asset base is too heavily weighted towards property and their long-term aim is to redress this imbalance. With this in mind, the assets committee's property sub-group is reviewing the commissioners' property interests with the benefit of a recent report on the portfolio from DTZ.
  — Watsons has been appointed as the commissioners' independent consultant actuaries. It will advise on the commissioners' liabilities for pensions and other expenditure, as well as investment strategy and management. The commissioners and the Church of England pensions board will discuss the future funding of clergy pensions with dioceses in the coming months.
  — The commissioners have also taken steps, after extensive consultations with dioceses and others, to reduce their expenditure commitments to a sustainable level through a programme of phased cuts in their contributions towards clergy pay and housing. The precise scope and amount of future cuts will be the subject of further consultations.
  — The commissioners are scrutinising their own administrative costs and have embarked on a review of each of their activities to ensure they are necessary and that they are carried out cost effectively.

  My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that provisional year end figures for 1993 show an increase of about 10 per cent. in the value of the commissioners' assets.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Air Crashes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of his staff have been allocated to duties relating to air crashes.

  The Attorney-General
  No member of my chambers is specifically allocated to duties relating to air crashes.

  Crown Prosecuters' Code
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to complete the new code for crown prosecutors.

  The Attorney-General
  The publication of the code for crown prosecutors is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. As I announced to the House on 15 December last year, the code is presently being reviewed in order to simplify its language and to make it a document which is more easily understood by police officers and
  15
  members of the public who are not lawyers. The limited public consultation phase has just been completed and the director, with her staff, are presently considering the responses which have been received. I understand that the director is hoping to publish the code in the early summer.

  Residence Test
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received from his counterparts in the European Union regarding the proposal to introduce a test of habitual residence in the United Kingdom affecting EC nationals seeking work in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the activities of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Solicitor-General
  The main activity of the Crown Prosecution Service is the efficient and effective prosecution of criminal cases.

  Racial Crimes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the prosecution policies in respect of racial crimes.

  The Attorney-General
  The code for crown prosecutors provides that a clear racial motivation for an offence should be regarded as an aggravating feature pointing towards prosecution, provided that the evidence is sufficient for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.

EMPLOYMENT

  Human Resource Management
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the National Audit Office's report into the human resource management in the employment department group.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in manufacturing on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: in April of each year

  Year

  North

  South-east

  Greater London

  South-east excluding Greater London

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1989

  229.9

  275.3

  295.7

  265.4

  1990

  250.3

  303.4

  329.3

  291.1

  1991

  267.4

  323.8

  349.7

  311.5

  1992

  289.1

  345.0

  374.6

  332.1

  1993

  299.4

  365.6

  397.7

  352.0

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  First Aid Packs
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what enactments of the European Community determine to limit the contents of first aid packs suitable for places of employment; and which of them include limitations on the inclusion of scissors or other sharp instruments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Various enactments of the European Community make provision for first aid in the workplace but none specify the contents of first aid packs.
  16
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Although the National Audit Office undertook a study of the Department's human resource management in 1992 it decided not to publish the results of this examination.

  North Yorkshire Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent by North Yorkshire training and enterprise council in 1993–94; and what is its budget for 1994–95.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total amount spent by North Yorkshire training and enterprise council in 1993–94 was £16,103,574. The budget for 1994–95 is £18,980,931.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research he has commissioned into health risks from passive smoking in the workplace; and what have been the conclusions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Workplace risks do not differ from those from passive smoking generally which were reviewed by the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. The findings were published in the committee's fourth report. The need for further research is kept under regular review.

  Manufacturing Industry Pay
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the average weekly earnings in manufacturing industry in the north-east and the south-east over the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is available for standard statistical regions. The north-east is part of the north region. The latest available information for the north, south-east, Greater London, is provided in the following table:

  Objective 3 Programme
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was allocated to the voluntary sector in each of the past two years in Scotland through the use of European social fund objective 3 programme(a) in total and (b) per project.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out for voluntary sector objective 3—the long-time unemployed —projects in Scotland:
  17

  ESF

  Number of projects

  £million

  1992

  5.23

  66

  1993

  7.55

  93

  The figures for 1992 are for amounts claimed in total: the figures for 1993 are four amounts approved. The amount claimed per project varies significantly and could be produced only by manual scrutiny at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many representations he has received in connection with the delay of allocation of European social fund objective 3 programme in Scotland for the year January to December 1994; and if he will make a statement as to the future allocation;

  (2) when he expects to announce the outcome of negotiations on the voluntary sector budget for January to December 1994 in Scotland in connection with European social fund objective 3.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 15 representations from Scotland in connection with the delay in making allocations for the European social fund objective 3 programme. The European Commission is still considering the Great Britain objective 3 plan which was submitted to it last November. Although the Government have pressed consistently for speedy progress, formal negotiations are only just beginning. It will not be possible to agree sectoral allocations until annual funding allocations and priorities for support have been confirmed.

EDUCATION

  Pupils (Drug Abuse)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils have been permanently excluded from schools in the north Yorkshire area for drug abuse in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for each of the past five years are not available. Information on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England was collected by the Department over a two-year period, starting with the summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system. In England, 81 pupils were excluded for drug-related offences and solvent abuse in year one and 179 in year two. It is not possible to provide an area breakdown of the figures because of assurances given as to confidentiality.

  Schools (Exclusion of Pupils)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils have been permanently excluded from schools in each of the London boroughs in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for each of the past 10 years are not available. Information on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England was collected by the Department over a two-year period, starting with the summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting 18
  system. In England, 2,910 pupils were excluded in year one and 3,833 in year two. It is not possible to provide an area breakdown of the figures because of assurances given as to confidentiality.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for how many regular publications he was responsible in 1993–94; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department for Education produces four regular publications.Schools Update, a free newsletter for teachers and governors, is produced and distributed to schools in England once per term, (i.e. three times a year). It is also sent to individuals who have asked to receive copies. The circulation is approximately 300,000.
  Inside Story, an in-house staff journal, is produced bi-monthly and distributed to DFE staff. The circulation is 2,200.
  Education Publications, a list of publications and press releases issued by the Department, is produced monthly. The circulation is 634.
  DFE Circulars and Green Papers, a listing, is produced monthly.
  The circulation is approximately 100.
  Schools Update and Inside Story are free publications. The others are available by subscription. Inside Story was launched in September 1993. The other titles ran throughout the year.

  Rising-fives
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the authorities which maintain a full system of admitting rising-fives to primary school and those who admit no rising-fives at all; and what information he has on intermediate systems.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is not available in the form requested. Most primary schools and local education authorities now have a policy of admitting children as rising-fives or earlier and in every authority in England in 1993 some children were admitted to primary schools on that basis.

  School Rolls, Greenwich
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children were on the roll(a) of Linton Mead and (b) Hawksmoor schools in the London borough of Greenwich on the last day of spring term March 1994 and the first day of summer term April 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend understands that there were 150 pupils on roll at Linton Mead school and 190 at Hawksmoor on the last day of the spring term 1994. Numbers on the first day of the summer term at each school were 165 and 189 respectively.

  Statemented Children
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority for 1984 and the latest date for which information is available(a) the number of educational psychologists employed, (b) the ratio of educational psychologists to school age children, (c) the number of children with statements and (d) the ratio of children with statements to the school-age population.
  19
  Mr. Forth
  The information requested for each of the years 1985 and 1993, the earliest and latest dates for which information is readily available, is shown in the tables.

  Educational psychologists and children with statements of special educational needs maintained by each LEA in England (January 1993)

  Educational psychologists

  Childerns for whom a statement of special education needs is maintained by the LEA

  LEA

  All pupils in schools

  Full-time equivalent

  Per 10,000 pupils in schools2

  Number1

  Per 10,000 in schools2

  Corporation of London

  1,795

  0.0

  0.00

  5

  27.9

  Camden

  27,541

  7.0

  2.54

  508

  184.5

  Greenwich

  38,182

  12.0

  3.14

  1,200

  314.3

  Hackney

  28,246

  7.5

  2.66

  1,027

  363.6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  19,605

  7.0

  3.57

  497

  253.5

  Islington

  23,295

  9.0

  3.86

  567

  243.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  21,053

  8.0

  380

  285

  135.4

  Lambeth

  28,366

  11.1

  3.91

  598

  210.8

  Lewisham

  35,601

  100

  2.81

  912

  256.2

  Southwark

  36,788

  10.5

  285

  814

  221.3

  Tower Hamlets

  33,841

  8.5

  2.51

  829

  345.0

  Wandsworth

  33,088

  10.0

  3.02

  920

  278.0

  Westminster

  22,616

  6.0

  2.65

  523

  231.3

  Barking and Dagenham

  25,373

  8.5

  3.35

  404

  159.2

  Barnet

  49,462

  14.5

  2.93

  781

  157.9

  Bexley

  34,112

  6.5

  1.91

  873

  255.9

  Brent

  37,168

  8.5

  2.29

  629

  169.2

  Bromley

  43,202

  10.0

  2.31

  946

  219.0

  Croydon

  52,305

  11.8

  2.26

  992

  189.7

  Ealing

  45,378

  10.8

  2.38

  1,024

  225.7

  Enfield

  42,479

  14.0

  3.30

  397

  93.5

  Haringey

  31,106

  10.8

  3.47

  479

  154.0

  Harrow

  32,474

  10.0

  3.08

  594

  182.9

  Havering

  36,552

  9.7

  2.65

  671

  183.6

  Hillingdon

  37,753

  9.8

  2.60

  423

  112.0

  Hounslow

  34,493

  6.0

  1.74

  1,038

  300.9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  21,623

  4.0

  1.85

  437

  202.1

  Merton

  26,387

  7.6

  2.88

  706

  267.6

  Newham

  41,018

  10.2

  2.49

  794

  193.6

  Redbridge

  38,043

  8.4

  2.21

  681

  179.0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  25,040

  6.0

  2.40

  491

  196.1

  Sutton

  26,232

  4.0

  1.52

  673

  256.6

  Waltham Forest

  34,980

  7.0

  2.00

  672

  192.1

  Birmingham

  186,603

  31.5

  1.69

  3,598

  192.8

  Coventry

  52,194

  12.0

  2.30

  1,025

  196.4

  Dudley

  47,308

  7.1

  1.50

  940

  198.7

  Sandwell

  52,058

  14.0

  2.69

  660

  126.8

  Solinull

  37,788

  8.4

  2.22

  713

  188.7

  Walsall

  49,300

  10.0

  2.03

  951

  192.9

  Wolverhampton

  44,517

  9.0

  2.02

  1,044

  234.5

  Knowsley

  28,566

  5.8

  2.03

  810

  283.6

  Liverpool

  85,654

  18.0

  2.10

  2,092

  244.2

  St. Helens

  31,189

  9.0

  2.89

  1,020

  327.0

  Sefton

  51,055

  11.0

  2.15

  1,119

  219.2

  Wirral

  58,939

  10.5

  1.78

  1,431

  242.8

  Bolton

  48,594

  7.4

  1.52

  823

  169.4

  Bury

  30,656

  4.6

  1.50

  990

  322.9

  Manchester

  79,242

  21.2

  2.68

  1,217

  153.6

  Oldham

  43,496

  7.0

  1.61

  768

  176.6

  Rochdale

  35,982

  7.5

  2.08

  810

  225.1

  Salford

  39,654

  7.6

  1.92

  445

  112.2

  Stockport

  50,256

  9.5

  1.89

  1,397

  278.0

  Tameside

  38,200

  8.0

  2.09

  1,086

  284.3

  Trafford

  35,665

  4.0

  1.12

  757

  212.3

  Wigan

  51,747

  6.5

  1.26

  1,409

  272.3

  Bansley

  34,221

  4.5

  1.31

  631

  184.4

  Doncaster

  52,278

  11.0

  2.10

  1,112

  212.7

  Rotherham

  44,311

  9.3

  2.10

  1,207

  272.4

  Sheffield

  74,487

  18.2

  2.44

  1,483

  199.1

  Bradford

  92,063

  20.0

  2.17

  1,270

  137.9

  Calderdale

  34,345

  6.5

  1.89

  488

  142.1

  Kirklees

  65,890

  17.0

  2.58

  1,691

  256.6

  Leeds

  116,599

  19.0

  1.63

  3,011

  258.2

  Wakefield

  55,190

  10.5

  1.90

  1,074

  194.6

  Gateshead

  31,711

  8.5

  2.68

  536

  169.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  46,367

  11.0

  2.37

  1,019

  219.8

  North Tyneside

  33,374

  8.0

  2.40

  1,066

  319.4

  South Tyneside

  26,125

  6.0

  2.30

  501

  191.8

  20 21

  Educational psychologists

  Children for whom a statement of special education needs is maintained by the LEA

  LEA

  All pupils in schools

  Full-time equivalent

  Per 10,000 pupils in schools2

  Number1

  Per 10,000 in schools2

  Sunderland

  51,762

  11.5

  2.22

  1,200

  231.8

  Isles of Scilly

  282

  0.0

  0.00

  1

  35.5

  Avon

  152,529

  25.5

  1.67

  4,054

  265.8

  Bedfordshire

  96,505

  15.9

  1.65

  2,448

  253.7

  Berkshire

  128,493

  19.5

  1.52

  3,009

  234.2

  Buckinghamshire

  108,659

  24.0

  2.21

  3,793

  349.1

  Cambridgeshire

  109,421

  16.0

  1.46

  1,842

  168.3

  Cheshire

  164,525

  25.3

  1.54

  4,154

  252.5

  Cleveland

  109,011

  16.5

  1.51

  2,353

  215.8

  Cornwall

  72,987

  12.0

  1.64

  2,571

  352.3

  Cumbria

  78,559

  190

  2.42

  2,076

  264.3

  Derbyshire

  149,862

  30.3

  2.02

  4,066

  271.3

  Devon

  151,459

  26.5

  1.75

  4,740

  313.0

  Dorset

  95,282

  20.6

  2.16

  2,320

  243.5

  Durham

  100,028

  24.5

  2.45

  2,133

  213.2

  East Sussex

  101,216

  19.7

  1.95

  2,200

  217.4

  Essex

  236,202

  42.3

  1.79

  5,067

  214.5

  Gloucestershire

  85,011

  17.4

  2.05

  2,070

  243.5

  Hampshire

  241,328

  54.8

  2.27

  6,802

  281.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  109,495

  16.0

  1.46

  1,676

  153.1

  Hertfordshire

  172,273

  33.0

  1.92

  4,145

  240.6

  Humberside

  149,240

  24.0

  1.61

  2,373

  159.0

  Isle of Wight

  19,005

  3.0

  1.58

  391

  205.7

  Kent

  251,214

  40.5

  1.61

  6,008

  239.2

  Lancashire

  230,232

  40.2

  1.75

  6,556

  284.8

  Leicesterhsire

  150,771

  32.6

  2.16

  n/a

  n/a

  Lincolnshire

  91,813

  13.0

  1.42

  2,810

  306.1

  Norfolk

  111,564

  19.0

  1.70

  3,060

  274.3

  North Yorkshire

  113,766

  19.0

  1.67

  2,193

  192.8

  Northamptonshire

  103,060

  19.0

  1.84

  1,983

  192.4

  Northumberland

  51,155

  11.0

  2.11

  1,200

  230.1

  Nottinghamshire

  164,830

  30.5

  1.85

  1,934

  117.3

  Oxfordshire

  89,774

  14.5

  1.62

  1,521

  169.4

  Shropshire

  69,257

  11.6

  1.67

  2,112

  305.0

  Somerset

  73,998

  11.1

  1.50

  1,594

  215.4

  Staffordshire

  171,943

  28.4

  1.65

  3,699

  215.1

  Suffolk

  100,542

  14.0

  1.39

  2,704

  268.9

  Surrey

  158,228

  32.3

  2.04

  4,449

  281.2

  Warwickshire

  79,728

  12.7

  1.59

  1,458

  182.9

  West Sussex

  107,039

  17.1

  1.60

  1,930

  180.3

  Wiltshire

  87,914

  13.3

  1.51

  3,419

  388.9

  ENGLAND

  7,841,783

  1,540.9

  1.96

  176,698

  225.3

  1 Derived from returns received from LEAs—Special Educational Needs Survey (SEN 2) 1993. Includes children in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools; non-maintained special and independent schools and children being educated otherwise than in a school.

  2 Divisor includes pupils in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, and non-maintained special and independent schools.

  n/a Information not available for Leicestershire LEA.

  Educational psychologists and children with statements of special educational needs maintained by each LEA in England (January 1985)

  Educational psychologists

  Childerns for whom a statement of special education needs is maintained by the LEA

  LEA

  All pupils in schools

  Full-time equivalent

  Per 10,000 pupils in schools2

  Number1

  Per 10,000 in schools2

  Barking and Dagenham

  24,916

  7.0

  2.81

  384

  154.1

  Barnet

  47,108

  8.5

  1.80

  644

  136.7

  Bexley

  34,661

  5.0

  1.44

  713

  205.7

  Brent

  36,652

  9.6

  2.62

  3—

  3—

  Bromley

  44,604

  8.0

  1.79

  766

  171.7

  Croydon

  57,297

  9.0

  1.72

  791

  151.3

  Ealing

  42,923

  5.4

  1.26

  513

  119.5

  Enfield

  41,229

  9.0

  2.18

  779

  188.9

  Haringey

  30,142

  7.0

  2.32

  556

  184.5

  Harrow

  31,923

  6.0

  1.88

  596

  186.7

  Havering

  39,504

  8.0

  2.03

  626

  158.5

  Hillingdon

  37,805

  5.0

  1.32

  698

  184.6

  Hounslow

  33,089

  5.9

  1.78

  12

  3.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  21,227

  2.0

  0.94

  340

  160.2

  Merton

  26,278

  5.0

  1.90

  160

  60.9

  22 23

  Educational psychologists

  Children for whom a statement of special education needs is maintained by the LEA

  LEA

  All pupils in schools

  Full-time equivalent

  Per 10,000 pupils in schools2

  Number1

  Per 10,000 in schools2

  Newham

  37,848

  11.0

  2.91

  755

  199.5

  Redbridge

  34,390

  6.0

  1.74

  724

  210.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  22,934

  4.0

  1.74

  305

  133.0

  Sutton

  25,050

  4.0

  1.60

  190

  75.8

  Waltham Forest

  35,130

  8.0

  2.28

  716

  203.8

  Birmingham

  184,359

  37.2

  2.02

  3,478

  188.7

  Coventry

  55,309

  12.3

  2.22

  1,232

  222.7

  Dudley

  49,963

  7.5

  1.50

  908

  181.7

  Sandwell

  54,299

  8.0

  1.47

  1,103

  203.1

  Solihull

  38,072

  7.3

  1.92

  84

  22.1

  Walsall

  52,349

  7.0

  1.34

  777

  148.4

  Wolverhampton

  48,014

  6.0

  1.25

  720

  150.0

  Knowsley

  31,238

  7.0

  2.24

  348

  111.4

  Liverpool

  88,435

  15.5

  1.75

  1,663

  188.0

  St.Helens

  34,913

  4.0

  1.15

  647

  185.3

  Sefton

  53,157

  9.0

  1.69

  581

  109.3

  Wirral

  60,362

  8.0

  1.33

  1,277

  211.6

  Bolton

  49,842

  4.0

  0.80

  675

  135.4

  Bury

  30,558

  3.5

  1.15

  507

  165.9

  Manchester

  79,867

  14.0

  1.75

  345

  43.2

  Oldham

  41,485

  5.0

  1.21

  661

  159.3

  Rochdale

  38,674

  9.0

  2.33

  618

  159.8

  Salford

  42680

  6.0

  1.41

  815

  191.0

  Stockport

  51,685

  6.7

  1.30

  862

  166.8

  Temeside

  38,065

  7.0

  1.84

  669

  175.8

  Trafford

  34,995

  3.0

  0.86

  278

  79.4

  Wigan

  57,079

  8.0

  1.40

  108

  18.9

  Barnsley

  39,441

  4.0

  1.01

  443

  112.3

  Doncaster

  53,271

  9.0

  1.69

  14

  2.6

  Rotherham

  47,218

  9.0

  1.91

  844

  178.7

  Sheffield

  85,230

  13.6

  1.60

  1,383

  162.3

  Bradford

  88,613

  14.0

  1.58

  1,391

  157.0

  Calderdale

  34,956

  2.0

  0.57

  338

  96.7

  Kirklees

  70,252

  12.0

  1.71

  929

  132.2

  Leeds

  120,865

  13.5

  1.12

  1,038

  85.9

  Wakefield

  57,486

  6.0

  1.04

  981

  170.7

  Gateshead

  33,838

  8.0

  2.36

  598

  176.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  46,882

  12.0

  2.56

  882

  188.1

  North Tyneside

  33,870

  8.0

  2.36

  604

  178.3

  South Tyneside

  26,577

  6.0

  2.26

  467

  175.7

  Sunderland

  55,941

  9.0

  1.61

  1,000

  178.8

  Isles of Scilly

  287

  0.0

  0.00

  3—

  3—

  Inner London

  332,916

  87.7

  2.63

  7,349

  220.7

  Avon

  155,467

  28.6

  1.84

  617

  39.7

  Bedfordshire

  94,075

  12.0

  1.28

  1,529

  162.5

  Berkshire

  129,156

  17.3

  1.34

  2,121

  164.2

  Buckinghamshire

  106,670

  16.0

  1.50

  2,859

  268.0

  Cambridgeshire

  105,133

  12.0

  1.14

  1,252

  119.1

  Cheshire

  165,879

  17.0

  1,02

  3,468

  209.1

  Cleveland

  109,668

  18.0

  1.64

  2,290

  208.8

  Cornwall

  72,603

  8.0

  1.10

  965

  132.9

  Cumbria

  82,187

  9.0

  1.10

  1,353

  164.6

  Derbyshire

  156,355

  21.5

  1.38

  2,698

  72.6

  Devon

  149,133

  20.4

  1.37

  2,807

  188.2

  Dorset

  92,600

  14.5

  1.57

  1,590

  171.7

  Durham

  104,981

  17.4

  1.66

  1,569

  149.5

  East Sussex

  97,571

  11.8

  1.21

  1,766

  181.0

  Essex

  250,118

  31.4

  1.26

  4,555

  182.1

  Gloucestershire

  87,235

  11.0

  1.26

  483

  55.4

  Hampshire

  244,958

  31.5

  1.29

  5,252

  214.4

  Hereford and Worcester

  112,025

  11.0

  0.98

  14

  1.2

  Hertfordshire

  179,696

  21.5

  1.20

  3,472

  93.2

  Humberside

  152,528

  21.0

  1.38

  2,417

  58.5

  Isle of Wight

  19,004

  3.0

  1.58

  317

  166.8

  Kent

  252,808

  19.0

  0.75

  5,137

  203.2

  Lancashire

  235,132

  34.0

  1.45

  4,708

  200.2

  Leicestershire

  151,164

  19.0

  1.26

  1,797

  118.9

  Lincolnshire

  91,827

  10.0

  1.09

  2,001

  217.9

  Norfolk

  114,594

  14.0

  1.22

  1,494

  130.4

  North Yorkshire

  113,740

  15.2

  1.34

  1,723

  151.5

  Northamptonshire

  101,392

  15.0

  1.48

  1,858

  183.2

  Northumberland

  51,380

  4.1

  0.80

  806

  156.9

  Nottinghamshire

  171,777

  30.0

  1.75

  2,617

  152.3

  24 25

  Educational psychologists

  Children for whom a statement of special education needs is maintained by the LEA

  LEA

  All pupils in schools

  Full-time equivalent

  Per 10,000 pupils in schools2

  Number1

  Per 10,000 in schools2

  Oxfordshire

  90,417

  12.5

  1.38

  1,046

  115.7

  Shropshire

  70,551

  8.0

  1.13

  780

  110.6

  Somerset

  75,157

  9.0

  1.20

  1,320

  175.6

  Staffordshire

  177,835

  17.7

  1.00

  2,671

  150.2

  Suffolk

  102,989

  13.0

  1.26

  1,532

  148.8

  Surrey

  165,910

  22.0

  1.33

  3,384

  204.0

  Warwickshire

  84,128

  9.8

  1.16

  1,547

  183.9

  West Sussex

  106,569

  12.0

  1.13

  1,394

  130.8

  Wiltshire

  88,570

  13.0

  1.47

  1,795

  202.7

  England

  7,955,735

  1,173.4

  1.47

  127,889

  160.8

  1 Derived from returns from LEAs—Special Educational Needs Survey (SEN 2) 1985. Includes children in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools; non-maintained special and independent schools and children being educated otherwise than in a school.

  2 Divisor includes pupils in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools; and non-maintained special and independent schools.

  3 Information not available.

  Grant-maintained Publication Centre
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total cost in the last financial year of the Department's grant-maintained publication centre; and what part of that total cost relates to the freephone number.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The grant-maintained publication centre was set-up in January 1994. The total cost to the end of March is £34,000, including VAT. Of this, £6,000 relates to the cost of setting up the freephone number and the handling of calls by the contractor. These figures do not include the cost of call charges still to be billed by British Telecom.

  Going GM Conferences
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure on travel and subsistence costs of civil servants attending the Going GM conferences at Darlington, Manchester, Newcastle and Huddersfield in February and March.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Those costs are recorded with all other travel and subsistence costs for civil servants in the Department. Disaggregated costs could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  St. Paul's Church of England Primary School
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to make a decision about the funding of the nursery class in St. Paul's Church of England primary school in Hammersmith.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Those proposals were approved by my right hon. Friend on 18 April 1994.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Transport Licensing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to keep the Transport Licensing Enforcement Division separate from the driver and vehicle licensing authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There is a commitment on Government when undertaking the three-year review of the 26
  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency to consider whether the enforcement function provided by Department of the Environment should be undertaken by the agency. This review is due to be completed early in 1995 and it would therefore not be appropriate to anticipate the outcome at this stage.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the role of the transport licensing enforcement division; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The role of the Transport Licensing and Enforcement Branch is to ensure that hauliers and passenger carrying operators who operate for reward are suitably licensed and conform with the conditions of their licences, and that their vehicles are roadworthy.

  Glanders
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of cases of glanders and farcy in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  There has been no cases of glanders or farcy recorded in Northern Ireland since 1913.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland concerning the right to silence; what specific issues have been raised with him by the Chief Constable relating to the proposed changes to the present criminal justice and public order legislation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the "right of silence" provisions contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations from the 'Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary about the provisions on inferences from silence contained in the Bill.

  Benefits (Residence Test)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to abandon proposals for introducing the habitual residence test for income support and housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.
  27
  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have referred a proposal for a habitual residence test in the income support and housing benefit schemes to the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Government will consider all representations made once the committee's report has been completed.

  Health and Social Services Boards

  Total average available beds1

  First attendances at Accident and Emergency Departments

  Total average available beds per 1,0002 population

  First attendances at Accident and Emergency Departments per 1,000 population

  Eastern

  5,304

  249,010

  8

  382

  Northern

  1,855

  89,698

  5

  224

  Southern

  2,019

  71,781

  7

  245

  Western

  1,910

  60,747

  7

  229

  1 Available beds cover acute and all other specialities but do not include beds open day only.

  2 As hospitals particularly in the Eastern Board area and to a lesser extent in the Western area, provide some services for patients from all parts of Northern Ireland, care should be taken when interpreting available bed figures per 1,000 population.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentages of ambulances in each service in Northern Ireland responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in 1993–94.

  Mr. Ancram
  The percentage of emergency ambulance calls responded to by each of the four ambulance services in Northern Ireland within eight minutes in the period 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 were:

  Per cent.

  Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  54

  Northern health and social services board

  56

  Southern health and social services board

  58

  Western health and social services board

  60

  Figures on the percentage of emergency ambulance calls responded to between 14 and 20 minutes are not available as the charter standards in Northern Ireland, based on population density, are set at 18 minutes—rural category—and 21 minutes—sparsely populated category. The percentage of emergency ambulance calls responded to by each of the four ambulance services in Northern Ireland within 18 to 21 minutes in the period 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 were:

  Per cent.

  Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  193

  Northern health and social services board

  296

  Southern health and social services board

  295

  Western health and social services board

  294

  1based on 18-minute target.

  2based on 21-target.

  Figures for the last quarter of 1993-94 are not yet available.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of(a) beds available and (b) new accident and emergency cases during 1993–94, by regional health and personal social services board; and what were the figures per 1,000 population.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is shown in the table and relates to the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993, which is the latest year for which information is held centrally.

SCOTLAND

  Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of Government money spent in the east end of Glasgow during the lifetime of the Glasgow eastern area renewal project and since then to date.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise suggests that from 1976 until the completion of the GEAR project in 1987, the Scottish Development Agency spent £70.4 million in the area. It estimates that a further £44.8 million was spent during the period 1987 to 1991 on the areas included in the GEAR project.

  Expenditure by the Glasgow development agency in the east end of Glasgow has been £11.4 million for the period April 1991 to March 1994.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of firms

  Annual value of contracts

  Number of guards

  1984–85

  1

  68,384

  2.0

  1985–86

  1

  70,468

  2.0

  1986–87

  3

  261,306

  20.0

  1987–88

  3

  294,229

  20.0

  1988–89

  4

  515,982

  46.5

  1989–90

  4

  740,430

  66.0

  1990–91

  4

  925,331

  86.0

  1991–92

  8

  1,042,070

  84.0

  1992–93

  8

  1,079,105

  88.0

  1993–94

  11

  1,255,769

  95.0

  Medical Teaching and Research
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the allocation of additional costs of teaching and research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: The additional cost of teaching and research element in health boards' revenue allocations is currently under review. The NHS management executive will consult health boards, NHS trusts and universities on its proposals following the review.

  Enterprise Companies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations, codes of practice and or guidelines govern the party political activity of senior paid employees, including chief executives and directors, of Scottish Enterprise and enterprise companies; how these differ from those which govern principal and chief officers of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 April 1994]: The party political activities of all Scottish Enterprise employees, including the staff and chief executives of local enterprise companies, are constrained by the conditions of their employment as set out in the code of conduct on political activities contained in the employees' handbook provided by Scottish Enterprise.

  The code of conduct provides that staff are free to participate in political activities providing such activity does not interfere with the employee's work or take place in working time or on Scottish Enterprise premises, and providing it has the approval of his or her employers. In particular, staff who participate in political activities are required to make it clear that they are doing so in a personal capacity, to refrain from making public use of confidential information gained through their employment, and to refrain from commenting on any policy relating to the activities of their employer.

  The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 introduced disqualification and political restrictions on certain officials within local government on the basis that it has long been accepted by successive Governments that senior local government officers should be, and be seen to be, politically impartial. In addition to the provisions contained in the 1989 Act, various regulations have been made, including the Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 and the Local Government (Politically Restricted Posts) Regulations 1990, as amended. Essentially, the effect of the legislation is that local government officers will be subject to similar, although somewhat less restrictive, rules to those which already apply to civil servants.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  China
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to China through(a) the aid budget and (b) the aid and trade provisions in the current year.
  30
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Expenditure on technical cooperation in 1992–93 was £8.45 million. Expenditure on aid and trade provision support in 1992–93 was £26.471 million.

  South Africa
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the United Kingdom is doing to help the training of the police and crowd control marshals in South Africa during the election period.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have helped to train over 3,000 crowd control marshals and 20,000 peace monitors as part of a total contribution to peacekeeping of £3 million. We have funded a training course on policing policy for potential future policy makers.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his plans for the future development of the Natural Resources Institute.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I said in reply to a written question from the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 19 April,Official Report, columns 495–96, a study of options for the future ownership of the institute is presently under way. The institute is also being restructured.

  Development Policy
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held on the place of armaments in development policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Arms have no place in development policy. The United Kingdom has taken part in discussions in a number of international fora, including the OECD's Development Assistance Committee and the European Community, on the negative effects of excessive military spending on development.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific measures are being discussed between his Department and the World bank regarding the protection of the poorest in Tanzania following the introduction of user charges and insurance schemes for health services.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government of Tanzania have agreed, following discussion with Her Majesty's Government and the World bank, that patients will be exempted from payment for certain services, such as chronic disease and all preventive services. Those genuinely unable to pay for other services will be granted exemption. We have provided technical assistance to assist the Government of Tanzania in this process. The issue of compulsory health insurance remains under discussion.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice the Overseas Development Administration has given to the Tanzanian Government regarding protection for those who cannot afford to pay for health care.
  31
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We funded a nationwide survey which demonstrated that the poor are already paying substantially for theoretically free services. Our advice to the Government of Tanzania, which has been accepted, was to increase central budget allocations for health, collect most user charges from those who can afford to pay and exempt certain categories of health care and those who are genuinely poor.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department possesses on what categories of persons are exempted from charges and insurance schemes under Tanzania's new health system.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following categories are exempt:

  (i) All persons exempted from the development levy on grounds of poverty;

  (ii) All preventive services and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV and AIDS;

  (iii) All patients with tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, leprosy, cholera, typhoid, diabetes and psychiatric conditions.

  (iv) All children under the age of 12.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on action to be taken in providing medicine to Iraq, following the Adjournment debate of 12 April on water-borne disease in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are ready to consider further requests for essential medical supplies for Iraq. We will expect requests to show that delivery will be well targeted and adequately monitored. We are discussing with the British Red Cross a recent appeal from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid his Department has given to the Indonesian Government since 1980.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Gross bilateral aid expenditure on Indonesia from 1 January 1980 to 31 March 1993 was £278 million. Figures for financial year 1993–94 are not yet available. Our aid supports projects in such sectors as power, forestry, railways, civil aviation, education, broadcasting and public administration.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what portion of the £130 million spent on energy and fuel efficiency awareness and advice since 1990, as quoted in paragraph 8.2 of "Climate Change: the United Kingdom Programme" has been funded by his Energy Efficiency Office; and if he will list the other sources and the amounts they have contributed to the total.

  Mr. Atkins
  Almost all the expenditure referred to in "Climate Change: the UK Programme"—some £129 million—went towards programmes which are the responsibility of the Energy Efficiency Office. Some 32
  £250,000 was spent on other programmes, as follows: £150,000 on work associated with the climate change programme—a discussion document, discussion workshops and conferences on global warming involving private and public sector industry, publication of a climate change newsletter and sponsorship of the Atmospheric Research Information Centre—£42,000 on green brigade projects and the environmental grant fund and £62,000, spent by the Department of Transport, on publication of the "Motoring and the Environment" and "New Car Fuel Consumption" leaflets.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions over the last five years recorded in the POLIS database as including a reference to part or all of the information being available only at disproportionate cost or because the information was not held centrally was 236 out of 19,729 answered. It is not possible to say how many of these questions could now be answered due to computerisation or more effective operational systems.

  Plastics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in replacing or reviving the second life plastics recycling scheme, and in particular the outcome of discussions between his Department, the farm plastics business in the United Kingdom and the National Farmers Union.

  Mr. Atkins
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), wrote last October to businesses engaged in the farm plastics films sector about the future of the pioneering second life plastics scheme. Subsequently, the Packaging and Industrial Films Association has led an intiative to design a new industry-led scheme which would maintain, and possibly expand, the collection and recovery activities established by second life plastics. I am greatly encouraged by the continuing discussions on a replacement scheme, which will need support both from the industry and from farmers. The National Farmers Union has played an active part in these discussions and initial signs are that farmers are broadly supportive of these proposals.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications he received from British Nuclear Fuels plc informing him of the first-stage commissioning, by the shearing of advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel, of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield and on the public announcements made at the time.
  33
  Mr. Atkins
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was informed by British Nuclear Fuels plc on Sunday 27 March 1994 that the first shear of irradiated fuel had taken place in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  BNFL made an announcement covering the event in its weekly internal newsletter.

  Regional Funding (Merseyside)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advertise for a private sector applicant for the post of head of the objective 1 executive for Merseyside.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much will be received under the objective 1 funding from the European Community; how much private funding he expects to lever into Merseyside; and what structure will be used to ensure the benefits to the region from this process will be maximised.

  Mr. Baldry
  The amount allocated to the objective 1 programme is 816 mecu over six years; as with other programmes of public expenditure, there is a clear intention to maximise leverage of private sector investment but it is difficult to forecast this in advance; the overall strategy for the objective 1 programme and the criteria which will be used for the selection of projects will be set by the monitoring committee.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested, for the Department's main HQ buildings in London and Bristol, is set out below. Information for other, smaller buildings in the regions is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Cost (£k)

  Firms

  Guards

  London HQ buildings1

  1984–85

  33

  1

  17

  1985–86

  166

  2

  Between 17 and 23

  1986–87

  179

  2

  Between 23 and 24

  1987–88

  186

  2

  Between 25 and 26

  1988–89

  255

  3

  Between 24 and 28

  1989–90

  311

  2

  24

  1990–91

  371

  2

  24

  1991–92

  404

  1

  Between 25 guards only and 20 guards plus 6 receptionists

  1992–93

  398

  1

  Between 18 and 20 guards and 5 and 6 receptionists

  1993–94

  393

  1

  18 guards, 5 receptionists

  Bristol HQ buildings2

  1984–85

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  37

  1

  5

  1986–87

  39

  1

  5

  1987–88

  40

  1

  5

  1988–89

  46

  1

  5

  1989–90

  50

  1

  5

  1990–91

  62

  1

  6

  1991–92

  72

  1

  6

  1992–93

  74

  1

  6

  1993–94

  78

  1

  6

  34
  1 Costs are exclusive of VAT. The buildings are occupied by staff from DOE and DOT. The first contract started January 1985. Two buildings are covered throughout. A contract for a third building was let during 1985–86 but details are not available from 1988–89. A fourth building was included for some six months in 1988–89.

  2 Costs are exclusive of VAT. The buildings are occupied by staff from DOE and DOT.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what period members of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee are appointed; and in what circumstances a member of the committee can be dismissed before the expiry of that period.

  Mr. Atkins
  Members are usually appointed for a three-year term which can be terminated at the discretion of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the statutory impediments to the abolition of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no statutory impediments.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of those rules of conduct, of the kind referred to in paragraph 11.16 of the Cabinet Office's 1992 publication "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: a Guide for Departments", which apply to members of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Atkins
  The rules of conduct referred to in paragraph 11.16 of the Cabinet Office's publication, "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: a Guide for Departments", apply to the staff of NDPBs. The terms and conditions of appointment of Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee members are based on the guidance given in the Cabinet Office's "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures", copies of which are already available in the Library of the House.

  River Thames
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the scope of his review of the strategic planning guidance on the River Thames.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 29 March that new strategic planning guidance would be prepared for the Thames. As a first step, a comprehensive study of the river will be undertaken. This will cover the river's history, environment, land use in the vicinity, potential and opportunities for development. The study will focus on the stretch of river from Hampton court to the Royal Naval college at Greenwich.

  Local Authority Rent Arrears
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of rent arrears in each local authority(a) as an absolute amount and (b) as a percentage of the annual rent collectable, broken down by current and future tenant arrears, for the last three years available; and what was the political control of the authority at the time.
  35
  Sir Georg Young
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: I have today placed in the Library tables showing the information requested on rent arrears of current and former tenants at the end of the financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93 for each local authority in England.

  Council Tax (Transitional Relief)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table setting out for each local authority in England which has submitted a claim for transitional relief for 1994–95 and on which his Department had received information by 15 April 1994(a) the estimated amount of transitional relief each such authority has claimed, (b) the percentage of the total sum of transitional relief for England which each individual claim represents and (c) the estimated amount of transitional relief per dwelling in each authority which has submitted a claim.

  Mr. Curry
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a list of all claims for transitional relief for 1994–95 received by the Department, showing the percentage against 1994–95 total provision for England which each claim represents and the amount of transitional relief per chargeable dwelling for each local authority.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether water purification processes are able to remove drug residues from water supplies;

  (2) what evidence he has of the presence of residues from (a) the contraceptive pill and (b) Diazepam tranquillisers in water supplies; and what assessment he has made of the dangers associated with such contamination;

  (3) what residues from drugs are most commonly detected in British water supplies; and what are the dangers associated with such contamination.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has commissioned surveys of concentrations of drugs residues in rivers and in river-derived water supplies. Survey data have also been provided to the Department by water companies and research organisations.

  Drugs residues, including components of the birth control pill, pain killers and tranquillisers have been detected only infrequently and at very low concentrations in a few rivers. The concentrations of all residues were found to be several orders of magnitude lower than levels that might be expected to cause adverse effects. These already insignificant concentrations are further reduced during water treatment. Diazepam and other drugs residues have not been detected in water supplies.

  National Rivers Authority Expenditure (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent in north Yorkshire by the National Rivers Authority in 1993–94; and what is its budget for North Yorkshire in 1994–95.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am informed by the National Rivers Authority that in its Northumbrian and Yorkshire region,36
  which covers North Yorkshire, it spent an estimated £53.9 million in 1993–94 and that it expects to spend around £52 million in 1994–95. Figures below regional level are not available.

  Road Traffic Growth
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has carried out to determine what level of road traffic growth is compatible with the commitments made by the United Kingdom Government under the 1992 framework convention on climate change, the 1992 convention on biological diversity and the Rio declaration on environment and development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 April 1994]: Under the framework convention on climate change, the United Kingdom is committed to take measures aimed at returning the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The United Kingdom climate change programme includes a commitment to real increases in road fuel duties of at least 5 per cent. in future Budgets. This is expected to contribute 2.5 millions of tonnes of carbon to the overall target of reducing emissions by 10 millions of tonnes of carbon by 2000. The calculation is based on an econometric model developed by the Department of Transport in consultation with DOE.

  As the recently published "Sustainable Development Strategy and Biodiversity Action Plan" make clear, the Government will take full account of sustainable development and biodiversity implications when formulating and reviewing its transport policies.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, columns 919–20, if he will update the information on urban regeneration spending given in his answer of 18 March 1993, Official Report, columns 365–67, so as to correspond with the single regeneration budget information sought in the later question.

  Mr. Baldry
  The table updates the one provided in the answer on 18 March 1993 and includes figures for the additional programmes which have now been brought together in the single regeneration budget. In the case of some of the programmes transferring from other Government Departments only part of the programme has been brought into the single budget. The figures for expenditure in previous years on those programmes relate to the element of the programme which has become part of the single budget, as far as those can be separately identified.

  The following programmes, now absorbed within the single regeneration budget, have previously operated only within urban priority areas: urban development corporations, urban programme, city challenge, task forces, city action teams, GEST 19 and safer cities. In future, resources for new projects funded from the single regeneration budget will be available throughout England.

  In addition, economic, social and physical regeneration is supported through main programme expenditure by several Government Departments.
  37

  Expenditures on programmes within the SRB

  £million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  UDCs

  Cash terms

  36

  62

  95

  88

  86

  89

  160

  255

  477

  607

  602

  515

  372

  286

  1253

  1245

  Current prices

  71

  114

  167

  148

  137

  137

  234

  347

  609

  718

  667

  552

  387

  286

  HATs

  Cash terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  27

  78

  88

  190

  190

  Current prices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  29

  81

  88

  URA

  Cash terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  181

  1211

  1221

  Current prices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  181

  City Grant2

  Cash terms

  —

  —

  8

  15

  24

  24

  28

  28

  39

  45

  41

  44

  24

  —

  Current prices

  —

  —

  14

  25

  38

  37

  41

  38

  50

  53

  45

  47

  25

  —

  DLG

  Cash terms

  30

  61

  67

  68

  73

  78

  77

  68

  54

  62

  77

  98

  105

  —

  Current prices

  59

  112

  118

  114

  116

  120

  112

  93

  69

  73

  85

  105

  109

  —

  Urban Programme3

  Cash terms

  94

  160

  156

  278

  254

  237

  246

  224

  223

  226

  238

  236

  170

  83

  Current prices

  186

  295

  275

  466

  404

  365

  359

  305

  285

  267

  264

  253

  177

  83

  Task Forces

  Cash terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  23

  20

  21

  21

  24

  18

  16

  Current prices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  31

  26

  25

  23

  26

  19

  16

  CATs

  Cash terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  8

  8

  5

  3

  1

  Current prices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  9

  9

  5

  3

  1

  City Challenge

  768

  Cash terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  52

  206

  214

  Current prices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56

  214

  214

  Estate Action

  Cash terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  175

  265

  348

  358

  373

  Current prices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  207

  294

  373

  372

  373

  Rest of SRB4

  Cash terms

  50

  60

  67

  63

  69

  73

  76

  70

  94

  108

  226

  215

  258

  201

  Current prices

  98

  111

  118

  106

  110

  113

  111

  95

  120

  128

  251

  230

  269

  201

  1 Current plans.

  2 Includes UDG and URG.

  3 Includes Urban Crime Fund payments in 1992–93.

  4 Up to 1994–95, Rest of SRB is made up from: Regional Enterprise Grant, Safer Cities, section 11, Ethnic Minority Grant, Ethnic Minority Business Initiatives, Programme Development Fund (PDF), TEC Challenge, Business Start-up Scheme, Local Initiative Fund, Compacts, Education Business Partnerships, Teacher Placement Service and GEST 19. From 1995–96 Rest of SRB also includes Urban Programme, Task Forces, City Action Teams (CATs), City Challenge, and Estate Action.

  PDF—Figures are for Great Britain, except for 1994–95 when they are for England only.

  s11 (urban)—Figures include payments for non-UPA ILEA authorities prior to 1991–92.

  City Challenge—Also supported by £19 million per year from the Housing Corporation.

  Estate Action—Due to change in Housing Capital Finance system, outturn figures not available prior to 1990–91.

  Urban Regeneration Agency (URA)—From 1994–95 subsumed City Grant and Derelict Land Grant.

  Captive Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many British breeding birds and diurnal birds of prey, including non-indigenous species, are held in captivity in the United Kingdom and registered in accordance with regulations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: Some 16,892 birds are currently registered with the Department.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received on the conservation implications of his Department's recent proposals for amending the scheme controlling the keeping of wild birds in captivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: Further to my announcement of 21 February, more than 7,000
  38
  individuals and organisations have been consulted about our proposals to modify the bird ringing and registration system. A number of responses were received. These have been carefully considered and an announcement is being made today.

  The Government's scientific advisors, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales have been fully consulted about my right hon. Friend's proposals to make changes to the bird ringing and registration system.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals are pending to amend the regulations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of flora and fauna; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: The European Commission issued an amended proposal for a

  39
  regulation on the possession of and trade in wild fauna and flora earlier this year. We are currently considering the details of the new text. Two explanatory memoranda on the proposals were recently deposited in the Library of the House.

  Severn Estuary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the dates for completion of consultation work for the Lower Severn estuary special protection area, registering the same area with the environment directorate of the European Union, producing a conservation plan for the wetlands habitat of bird species covered by the 1979 wild birds directive within the same special protection area, and producing a national conservation strategy for the redshank and dunlin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: Since the hon. Member's previous question on the lower Severn estuary of 26 October, Official Report, columns 533–34, my Department has received English Nature's proposals for the designation of this site as a special protection area. The period of consultation with private land owners and others by English Nature and the Countryside Commission for Wales ended on 18 April. The Lower Severn estuary is planned for designation as a special protection area in 1994.

  English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are in the initial stages of preparing a management plan for the conservation of wildlife interests on the Severn. The Government's plans for the conservation of estuarial habitat and migratory wildfowl and waders, including dunlin and redshank, are informed by the extensive monitoring programmes compiled through the birds in estuaries inquiry, which uses a large number of professionally co-ordinated volunteers and is supported by the Government's nature conservation agencies. These programmes were recently re-launched, with Government endorsement, as the wetland bird survey.

  Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average delay in appeals from Bradford being heard by the valuation and community charge tribunal; what is the total number of appeals from Bradford appellants outstanding, to date; when those appeals are expected to be cleared; what action he is taking to complete all outstanding appeals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  A meaningful figure cannot yet be given on the average length of time taken to hear appeals, since a great many cases are being settled by agreement between the taxpayer and the Valuation Office agency and only a small proportion have been heard and determined by valuation tribunals.

  At the end of March 1994, 3,334 proposals to alter the valuation list received in the area of Bradford city council were still outstanding.

  As we announced on 11 January, we expect four out of five appeals to be dealt with before the end of the year and the remainder to be settled as rapidly as possible thereafter.

  Leaseholders
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many long leaseholders in flats have to date exercised their right to collective enfranchisement contained in part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993(a) up to the stage of serving a notice of their claim to exercise the right and (b) to the completion of the acquisition.

  Sir George Young
  As collective enfranchisement under the provisions of this Act is a private transaction, leaseholders are not obliged to inform the Department when they serve a notice on their landlord or when they complete the transaction. Therefore, this information is not available.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inquiries from leaseholders have been received by the advisory service set up in consequence of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

  Sir George Young
  I understand from the chief executive of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service, which operates independently from the Department that since it began work in February this year, 1,326 inquiries have been received and recorded.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of his proposal to lift protection from birds of prey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I announced on 21 February 1994 that, following our review, we proposed to make changes to the bird registration system to reduce unnecessary regulation and to ensure that the controls are targeted and implemented more effectively. We consulted around 7,000 organisations and individuals about our proposal and a copy of our consultation letter was placed in the Library. Some 192 responses were received.

  The Government remain convinced that the bird registration system is in need of change. It was introduced for conservation reasons and mainly in response to concerns about the major decline in populations of birds of prey in the wild. Since the introduction of the registration system of 1982, populations of some species have recovered, particularly sparrowhawks, kestrels and common buzzards.

  Some concern was expressed by consultees that the removal of ringing and registration requirements could lead to an increase in the taking of birds of prey from the wild. However, we believe that the strict controls which will continue to protect birds of prey in the wild should avoid any threat to the conservation of the three United Kingdom breeding species to be removed from registration requirements: the sparrowhawk, kestrel and common buzzard. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 generally prohibits the injuring, killing or taking of birds from the wild. It also generally makes it an offence to possess any bird or egg, whether alive or dead, or any part or derivative of such a specimen.

  The Act will continue to be strictly enforced. Moreover, the resources which will be released by deregistration will enable the Department's wildlife inspectorate to give

  41
  greater assistance to the police and other enforcement agencies in protecting all wild birds, particularly those more endangered species such as the hobby, red kite and golden eagle. Reorganising work in this way will also provide resources to expand the use of DNA testing techniques to verify captive breeding claims.

  Concern was also expressed by the RSPCA and others that freedom of movement of specimens within the European Union would create opportunities for illegal trade in non-native birds, including globally threatened species. We have therefore decided that ringing and registration controls should continue to apply within Great Britain to birds of prey which are threatened with extinction on a global basis, in order to assist international conservation efforts. In particular this means that the following species originally proposed for deregistration will be retained on schedule 4 to the Act.

  Species

  Black Honey-Buzzard

  Henicopernis infuscatus

  Madagascar Fish Eagle

  Haliaeetus vociferoides

  Pallas's Fish Eagle

  Haliaeetus leucoryphus

  Steller's Sea Eagle

  Haliaeetus pelagicus

  Mountain Serpent-Eagle

  Spilornis kinabaluenis

  Adaman Serpent-Eagle

  Spilornis elgini

  Madagascar Serpent-Eagle

  Eutriorchis astur

  Small Sparrowhawk

  Accipiter nanus

  New Britain Sparrowhawk

  Accipiter brachyurus

  Imitator Sparrowhawk

  Accipiter imitator

  Gundlach's Sparrowhawk

  Accipiter gundlachi

  White-necked Hawk

  Leucopternis lacernulata

  Grey-backed Hawk

  Leucopternis occidentalis

  Ridgeway's Hawk

  Buteo ridgwayi

  Galapagos Hawk

  Buteo galapagoensis

  Hawaiian Hawk

  Buteo solitarius

  New Guinea Eagle

  Harpyopsis novaeguinae

  Great Philippine Eagle

  Pithecophaga jefferyi

  Adalbert's Eagle

  Aquila adalberti

  Imperial Eagle

  Aquila heliaca

  Wallace's Hawk-Eagle

  Spizaetus nanus

  Plumbeous Forest-Falcon

  Micrastur plumbeus

  Lesser Kestrel

  Falco naumanni

  Mauritius Kestrel

  Falco punctatus

  The Government proposal to invite the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to advise on criteria for the listing of species on schedule 4 and our proposal that the list of species should be subject to regular review, will enable us to respond to changes in population levels of particular species and introduce or reinstate registration requirements in the future. If necessary, this can be done swiftly to meet any conservation need. I have today made an order under section 22 of the Act. This will remove the following species from schedule 4 to the Act: sparrowhawk, kestrel, common buzzard, non-native and irregular visitor species of birds of prey—except the Barbary falcon and the globally threatened species listed above—and certain other birds which are not commonly kept in captivity.

TRANSPORT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to secure greater transparency in the affairs of non-elected bodies whose 42
  membership in whole or in part is appointed by him or who exercise functions previously carried out by local authorities.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's policy of extending access to official information applies not only to Government Departments but to public bodies which come under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman. Details are set out in the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

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

  Mr. Norris
  The following Acts of Parliament which affect local government have been introduced by the Department of Transport since 1990.

  Acts

  New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

  (c22)

  Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991

  (c26)

  Road Traffic Act 1991

  (c40)

  Severn Bridges Act 1992

  (c3)

  Traffic Calming Act 1992

  (c30)

  Transport and Works Act 1992

  (c42)

  Railways Act 1993

  (c43)

  Detective Agencies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on contracts with private detective agencies since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of Transport has spent approximately £760,000 on contracts with private detective agencies since April 1991.

  Such agencies have been used for the following purposes:

  (a) to hand serve summonses in connection with prosecutions for failure to pay vehicle excise duty;

  (b) to collect evidence and hand serve papers on people who have trespassed on the Department's land;

  (c) to establish the whereabouts of people believed to have caused damage to the Department's roads and structures for the purpose of making claims against them;

  (d) to trace former employees who were inadvertently overpaid before they left the Department's employ;

  (e) in litigation action;

  (f) in one case to investigate a member of staff following complaints received from members of the public.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals in regard to environmental protection he plans to put to the European Transport Council on 18 April.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The United Kingdom made no specific proposals on environmental protection at the
  43
  European Transport Council on 18 April. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) of 20 April, Official Report, column 524, which reported the items discussed and result of the Council.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contingency plans he has in the event of there being no purchasers for the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend sees no need for contingency plans. The Government would not have decided to transfer the Transport Research Laboratory to the private sector if we did not believe that that could be achieved.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will guarantee future work from his Department for the Transport Research Laboratory during and after its privatisation.

  Mr. Key
  In 1994–95 not less than 40 per cent. by value of new surface transport research work commissioned by the Department of Transport will be guaranteed to the Transport Research Laboratory. The question of guaranteeing work for the Transport Research Laboratory after privatisation is a matter for consideration with our financial advisers and prospective bidders as part of the sale process.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the service conditions of the Transport Research Laboratory staff are not adversely affected in the long term following privatisation.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has undertaken to sell the Transport Research Laboratory only to reputable purchasers, who can demonstrate an ability to meet obligations to staff transferring to the new organisation.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the statement he made regarding future privatisation plans of the Transport Research Laboratory at the time of the setting up of the Transport Research Laboratory agency.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend made no statement about future privatisation plans for the Transport Research Laboratory at the time of launching it as an executive agency.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what procedure he proposes to introduce in respect of the transfer of intellectual property rights from the Transport Research Laboratory to the potential purchaser; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what measures he proposes to ensure that collaborative research at the Transport Research Laboratory is not damaged by privatisation;

  (3) if he will take steps to guarantee the future availability of the (a) research track, (b) pavement test, (c) driving simulator, (d) library and (e) crash test facilities currently at the Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend will be considering those matters with his financial and other advisers as part of the process of transferring the Transport Research Laboratory to the private sector.
  44
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of fragmentation of the Transport Research Laboratory research undertakings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the advice of the consultants KPMG Peat Marwick on the options for privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory, including fragmentation. The Government have not yet decided on the form of sale but the current aim is to seek bids for the whole of the laboratory rather than its constituent components.

  Research Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research projects have been undertaken in the last 10 years; in each case, whether this research was published, if applicable; in what form it was made available to the general public; and what proportion of his Department's commissioned research projects in each year have resulted in publication.

  Mr. Key
  The Department commissions many research projects each year addressing issues ranging from urban congestion, parking control, public transport operations, bridge and highway engineering to aviation and shipping safety. At any particular time, some 400 to 500 projects are in progress. In general, the Department's policy is that the results of this research commissioned should be published or otherwise disseminated to those expected to benefit from the knowledge.

  Publication can be in the form of research reports, contractor reports, guides, papers and articles. The Transport Research Laboratory, which has been responsible for carrying out and managing much of the Department's research, has published approximately 800 such reports since 1985. Without disproportionate effort, it is not possible to establish in what form each research result was made available and what proportion this represents of the total research commissioned. Moreover, reports often do not represent the final outcome of the Department's research effort. In many cases, findings are promulgated through changes to technical standards, legislation, operational procedures and policy.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the value of the combined research operations functioning on the purpose adapted site at Crowthorne;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the financial value of collaborative research to the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Key
  Assessments of the value of the research operations at Crowthorne and of the collaborative research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory are commercially confidential information, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the sale process.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he will take to ensure continued impartiality following privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend will be considering the measures required to ensure the continued impartiality of the Transport Research Laboratory with his financial and other advisers as part of the process of transferring the laboratory to the private sector.

  A66
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many agricultural vehicles use the A66 each day between Scotch Corner and Penrith.

  Mr. Key
  No separate data are available on the flows of agricultural vehicles on the A66. Agricultural vehicles are classified as goods vehicles in the national traffic census.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles use the A66 per day from east to west and west to east between Scotch Corner and Penrith.

  Mr. Key
  The latest available estimates are for 1992. Approximately 8,900 vehicles use this route on average, each day. Of these about 53 per cent.—4,700—are westbound and 47 per cent.—4,200—eastbound.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicles use the A66 each day between Scotch Corner and Penrith.

  Mr. Key
  The latest available estimates are for 1992. Approximately 2,200 heavy goods vehicles use this route on average, each day—those figures include agricultural vehicles.

  Privatisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has given to the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee's second report of Session 1993–94, HC 137, on privatisation and deregulation of Department of Transport agency work.

  Mr. Key
  The Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Transport, on the privatisation and deregulation of Department of Transport executive agency work, was sent to the Committee on 30 March 1994. I understand that the Committee is to publish the response shortly.

  Belgrave Road
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Belgrave road, London SW1, will be removed from the priority—red—route network once Vauxhall Bridge road, London SW1, has been improved.

  Mr. Norris
  Provided that Vauxhall Bridge road is improved so that it is able to accommodate all inner ring road traffic, yes.

  Westlink London Bus Subsidiary
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the valuation formula for the sale of Westlink London Bus subsidiary.

  Mr. Norris
  A confidential benchmark valuation was carried out by London Transport before the sale. Potential purchasers made their own assessments of the value of the company in formulating their bids. In the light of the benchmark valuation, the Government were and remain content with the proceeds from the sale.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the sale conditions of the Westlink London Bus subsidiary included clawback clauses in the event of its resale within 12 months of its privatisation.
  46
  Mr. Norris
  No. The sale took place on the open market and was widely advertised. This ensured that good value for money was obtained from the privatisation.

  Railway Property (Trespass)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the statutory provision, with regard to trespass on railway land and property, and related offences, consequent upon the passing of the Railways Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The offence of trespass on railway land and property, and related offences, are covered by sections 54 and 57 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949. These sections apply to Railtrack by virtue of paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Railways Act 1993.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he received from the British Transport Police Federation in September 1993 on the effect of the Railways Act 1993 on offences relating to trespassing on railway property.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. The federation's chairman wrote to me on 2 September raising a number of issues which were subsequently discussed at a meeting on 8 September, but we did not touch upon the specific question of trespass.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if British Rail will prosecute a trespass on railway lines by the Garth and South Berkshire hunt on Saturday 12 March.

  Mr. Freeman
  At 12.58 on Saturday 12 March, a British Rail train driver reported hounds on the line at Mortimer, south of Reading. The driver of the next train through at 13.02 reported a clear track. I understand that no further action is proposed.

  A13
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected date of the construction and completion of the Wellington to Mandyke section of the new A13 road.

  Mr. Key
  As this question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency, the chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 25 April 1994:
  You recently put down a Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected date of the construction and completion of the Wennington to Mar Dyke section of the new A13 road. As the question relates to an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I have been asked to reply.
  The A13 Wennington to Mar Dyke scheme has been announced as a new start for 1994–95. We expect to invite tenders shortly. The tender documents will set down a contract period not exceeding two years. Construction of the scheme will be co-ordinated with works for the Thames Avenue to Wennington section which started earlier this year.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  D-day Anniversary
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract between his Department and Lowe Bell Communications as consultants to the commemoration of the D-day anniversary.

  Mr. Sproat
  No.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what private sector sponsorship is being arranged for any events associated with the commemoration of the D-day anniversary.

  Mr. Sproat
  Sponsorship for events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings has been generously given and more may be given.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what provision for expenses and other remuneration to Lowe Bell Communications has been agreed in addition to its fee as consultants to the commemoration of the D-day anniversary.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: In addition to its consultancy fees of £50,000, Lowe Bell Communications is paid administrative expenses at cost, up to a maximum of £12,500 over the period of the contract, where additional agreed expenses are incurred these are paid at cost. All these costs are net of VAT.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library all tender documents connected with the appointment of consultants to the commemoration of the D-day anniversary.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: Yes.

  Leisure Industry
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out the nature of the relationship between his Department and the leisure industry.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has a constructive and collaborative relationship with the leisure industry which it pursues in each of its areas of responsibility. Further details are set out in the Department's 1994 annual report.

WALES

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to introduce to improve the chances of survival of patients admitted with life-threatening conditions into accident and emergency units in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I want to build on the present good record and the Welsh Office is currently working with the health service to review the pattern of accident and emergency provision across Wales.

  Sustainable Energy Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the preparation of a sustainable energy policy for Wales.
  48
  Mr. Redwood
  The Government's policies in this area are set out in "Sustainable Development—The UK Strategy", published on 25 January 1994.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been unable to obtain NHS treatment from a general dental practitioner in the period from December 1992 in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Fortnightly returns submitted by family health service authorities suggest that between 4 December 1992 and 25 March 1994 authorities were unable immediately to secure NHS dental treatment for only eight patients in Wales, four of whom resided in Clwyd. It is likely that NHS treatment was secured in the period immediately following submission of the returns and it is significant that there are now over 51,000 more patient registrations in Wales than there were in December 1992.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress with the patients charter.

  Mr. Redwood
  The patients charter has played an important role in raising the standard of services provided in Wales and performance continues to improve. Provisional figures show that all the waiting times guarantees had been achieved by 4 April 1994.

  Local Authority Boundaries
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he made of transport links between Llandridnod Wells and Llanelly Hill when considering the proposed new local authority boundaries.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to limit the spread of superstores in out-of-town locations.

  Mr. Redwood
  Government policy on retail development is set out in planning policies guidance note 6, "Town Centres and Retail Developments". This stresses the need for a suitable balance in providing for retail development between town centre and out-of-centre retail facilities. I have made clear my intention to encourage more investment in town centres and greater use of under-used land in and around those centres and will issue further guidance.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policies for enabling local councils to repair and modernise aging housing stock.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have made substantial resources available for home renovation in Wales. It must be for local councils to determine their priorities for repair and improvement from the resources that they have available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what cash he has given to each of the boroughs and districts in Clwyd for the purpose of renovating housing stock.
  49
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the allocation of capital resources for the renovation of private and public housing stock in each district in Clwyd for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is given in the following table:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Alyn and Deeside

  4.311

  4.779

  Colwyn

  4.623

  5.568

  Delyn

  3.651

  4.815

  Glyndwr

  2.538

  2.925

  Rhuddlan

  5.315

  5.281

  Wrexham Maelor

  9.933

  10.758

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the cost of the proposed local government reform in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The measures in the Local Government (Wales) Bill will result in transitional costs estimated on the basis of a report prepared by consultants to be between £65 million and £150 million over 15 years. Those will be offset from April 1996 by continuing savings in public expenditure. The precise level of those will depend on decisions to be taken by the new councils on such matters as staffing levels and management structures.

  Drug Education
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review drug eclucalion in schools.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All schools have to provide a curriculum which promotes pupils' spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development and all pupils have to be taught about the effects of drug abuse on health as part of the national curriculum. It is for schools themselves to decide how to organise and provide drugs education. School inspectors consider the effectiveness of health education as part of their duty to report on the provision of education in schools.

  The Welsh Office has issued a guide on "Drug Misuse and the Young", which contains advice on drugs education. Under the grants for education support and training programme, we have made grants available to local education authorities for measures to promote personal and social education, including education on health and drugs.

  Training
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what numbers of males and females aged over 18 years are at present in full-time training in Wales; and what were the numbers in each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Numbers in training are not collected by gender or age. The number of adults aged 18 and over in full-time training at 31 March 1989 and in subsequent years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  13,561

  1990

  15,929

  1991

  10,252

  50

  Year

  Number

  1992

  10,449

  1993

  10,754

  1994

  19,587

  1 The figure for 1994 refers to the position for February. The figure at 31 March 1994 is not available.

  Note:

  Comparable figures for years prior to 1989 are not available.

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show the average income of(a) farmers and (b) farm workers in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, using 1985 as a constant, in each year since 1980 showing these incomes as a percentage of the average wage.

  Mr. Redwood
  Two of the main indicators of the average income of farmers are the cash income per farm and the average net farm income. Both are derived from the farm business survey. Neither of those estimates is available on a consistent basis before 1986–87 nor strictly comparable with the average wage. Details from both of those income measures together with information on the average income of hired full time agricultural workers are shown in the tables.

  Cash income of the farm business

  Years

  Estimated cash income (£ 000 per annum)

  Real terms 1985 prices1 (£000 per annum)

  1987–88

  18.2

  17.01

  1988–89

  19.7

  17.43

  1989–90

  19.6

  16.07

  1990–91

  19.5

  14.55

  1991–92

  23.3

  16.52

  1992–93

  23.9

  16.37

  Net farm income of the farm business

  Years

  Estimated net farm income (£000 per annum)

  Real terms 1985 prices1 (£000 per annum)

  1987–88

  11.2

  10.5

  1988–89

  15.8

  14.0

  1989–90

  12.3

  10.1

  1990–91

  10.5

  7.8

  1991–92

  14.0

  9.9

  1992–93

  16.9

  12.0

  1993–94 (forecast)

  22.6

  15.3

  1 Deflated by the Retail Price Index.

  Hired full-time agricultural workers in Wales

  Year

  Cash terms (£ per week)

  Real terms 1985 prices1 (£ per week)

  Percentage of average wage2

  1981

  87.62

  110.77

  73.4

  1982

  93.53

  108.88

  71.8

  1983

  101.50

  113.03

  72.5

  1984

  105.27

  111.63

  70.6

  1985

  117.43

  117.43

  73.3

  1986

  117.51

  113.65

  69.0

  1987

  128.73

  119.53

  70.2

  1988

  135.50

  119.91

  69.0

  1989

  141.07

  115.82

  65.3

  1990

  153.83

  115.31

  66.3

  1991

  173.79

  123.08

  68.9

  1992

  3204.18

  3139.47

  375.4

  1993

  189.

  127.46

  67.4

  51
  1 Deflated by the Retail Prices Index.

  2 Average earnings of all industries and services in wales. It covers those whose pay for the survey period at April each year was not affected by absence. Men aged 21 and over and women aged 18 and over on 1 January in the year of the survey for 1981–1983 and males and females on about rates for 1984 onwards.

  3 Figuers are inflated due to employees working, on avarage, 2 hours more overtime than in other years, resulting in an extra £10 to £12 income per week.

  Hospital episodes 1 with a main diagnosis of asthma (ICD9 493) In-patients and day cases by District Health Authority of treatment

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991–922

  1992–932

  Clwyd

  387

  366

  415

  385

  430

  494

  653

  584

  643

  694

  703

  664

  759

  695

  East Dyfed

  212

  232

  232

  277

  300

  291

  324

  352

  368

  391

  313

  356

  367

  424

  Pembrokeshire

  116

  119

  121

  110

  134

  186

  199

  198

  192

  218

  218

  246

  233

  235

  Gwent

  474

  460

  629

  483

  610

  678

  696

  910

  827

  901

  793

  697

  912

  1,032

  Gwynedd

  243

  255

  213

  246

  264

  269

  315

  409

  456

  438

  360

  396

  413

  292

  Mid Glamorgan

  575

  601

  688

  621

  719

  845

  1,072

  1,106

  1,113

  1,148

  1,006

  1,068

  3—

  3—

  Powys

  100

  118

  114

  82

  114

  92

  92

  91

  89

  91

  137

  109

  176

  178

  South Glamorgan

  585

  641

  819

  768

  825

  894

  928

  1,019

  1,112

  1,303

  1,116

  1,185

  1,213

  1,038

  West Glamorgan

  392

  487

  540

  596

  654

  753

  614

  679

  787

  907

  902

  563

  3—

  3—

  Total

  3,084

  3,279

  3,771

  3,568

  4,050

  4,502

  4,893

  5,348

  5,587

  6,091

  5,548

  5,284

  3—

  3—

  1 Figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical information. Data relate to discharges and deaths for 1979 to 1990 and to finished consultant episodes for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Figures are presented according to the District Health Authority area (as at present) in which hospital treatment took place. 1992–93 information includes NHS Trusts.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Denotes not available.

  Sources: Hospital Activity Analysis 1979 to 1990.

  Patient Episode Database for Wales 1991–92 onwards.

  Welsh Economic Council
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which members of the new Welsh economics policy committee have qualifications or experience in ecological sustainability or have published in the field; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Economic Council was set up to provide a discussion forum with individuals drawn from a wide spectrum of business and economic interests across Wales. Its core membership will be supplemented by additional individuals, who will be invited to meetings where their particular qualifications or experience could contribute to the discussions.

  NHS Salary Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the total salary costs for(a) managerial staff, (b) clerical and administrative staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff since 1989 in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 25 November 1993,Official Report, column 151, and 17 December 1993, Official Report, column 1081.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of those persons and institutions to whom Forestry Commission land has been sold in Wales during the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Asthma
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of asthma were reported in each Welsh health area for each year since 1979; and if he will set out the figures in the same manner as the Secretary of State for Health in her answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) of 30 March,Official Report, columns 887–90.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table:

  Mr. Redwood
  Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1993 are held in the Library of the House. The lists provide the name of the purchaser where the purchaser has agreed that this can be made public.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, columns 67–68, for which of those Forestry Commission sites sold, applications for clear felling have been granted; and for which of the Forestry Commission sites sold applications have been made for further planting schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  Applications for clear felling have been approved for the areas given as follows and applications have been approved for replanting all these areas.

  County and name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Area approved for felling (hectares)

  Clwyd

  Bryndethol

  7.0

  4.4

  Maes Mynach

  10.0

  9.6

  Worlds End

  84.0

  9.7

  Dyfed

  Allt Cae Ffynon Wen

  3.0

  2.5

  Allt Cilfrychen and Goredig

  27.0

  10.7

  Allt Cwm Tywyll

  5.5

  5.5

  Allt Penlan Fach

  4.0

  0.6

  Allt Pwll Priddog

  19.0

  1.3

  Cae Sarah

  4.0

  4.0

  Careg Fadog Wood

  6.0

  5.9

  Coed Newydd, Gwastad

  48.6

  14.0

  Cresselly Big Wood

  48.0

  3.6

  Cwm Bran Wood

  8.0

  8.0

  Factory Wood

  3.0

  3.0

  53

  County and name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Area approved for felling (hectares)

  Gelli Cefn y Rhos

  7.0

  5.5

  Hafod Iwan

  32.0

  18.0

  Quarry Wood

  7.0

  6.4

  Tan y Lan

  32.5

  15.5

  Tan yr Allt

  7.0

  1.5

  Powys

  Craig yr Henffordd

  7.5

  6.8

  Stocking Wood

  8.0

  2.5

  Average daily available beds for all specialties

  New accident and emergency out-patients

  Health Authority area1

  Number

  Rate2

  Number

  Rate2

  Clwyd

  2,252

  5.4

  102,931

  248.3

  East Dyfed

  1,491

  6.3

  60,014

  252.9

  Gwent

  2,778

  6.2

  110,714

  246.4

  Gwynedd

  1,434

  6.0

  45,268

  188.8

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,646

  6.7

  155,898

  287.2

  Pembrokeshire

  437

  3.8

  25,760

  226.3

  Powys

  854

  7.2

  25,501

  213.9

  South Glamorgan

  2,933

  7.1

  84,446

  205.7

  West Glamorgan

  2,244

  6.0

  105,546

  284.3

  1 Figures are given according to the district health authority area in which hospitals are situated. NHS Trusts are included.

  2 Rate per 1,000 population using 1992 mid-year estimated population.

  Statementing of Children
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority for 1984 and the latest date for which information is available(a) the number of educational psychologists employed, (b) the ratio of educational psychologists to school age children, (c) the number of children with statements and (d) the ratio of children with statements to the school age population.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information required is given in the following table. Data on educational psychologists were not collected prior to January 1992.

  Number of educational psychologists 1993

  Rate per 10,000 of the school population 1993

  Clwyd

  20

  3

  Dyfed

  10

  2

  Gwent

  21

  3

  Gwynedd

  5

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  19

  2

  Powys

  4

  2

  South Glamorgan

  10

  2

  West Glamorgan

  12

  2

  Wales

  101

  2

  Number of children with statements of special educational needs

  Rate per 10,000 of the school population1

  1984

  1993

  1984

  1993

  Clwyd

  1,142

  3,219

  162

  490

  Dyfed

  814

  1,319

  144

  233

  Gwent

  1,658

  2,297

  215

  314

  Gwynedd

  987

  865

  242

  240

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,885

  4,016

  390

  422

  Powys

  308

  517

  154

  270

  South Glamorgan

  1,171

  1,374

  175

  202

  Bad Avalability
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average number of(a) beds available and (b) new accident and emergency cases during 1993–94, by regional health authority; and what were the figures per 1,000 population.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information given in the following table relates to 1992–93, the latest financial year for which figures are available.

  Number of children with statements of special educational needs

  Rate per 10,000 of the school population1

  1984

  1993

  1984

  1993

  West Glamorgan

  2,268

  2,333

  376

  411

  Wales

  12,223

  15,940

  248

  339

  1 The number of pupils per 10,000 of the full-time pupils in maintained nursery, primary, secondary, special and independent schools.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentages of ambulances in each service in Wales responded to emergency calls within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The ambulance service classification in Wales and its standards for emergency call response times are as follows:

  50 per cent. within minutes

  95 per cent. within minutes

  Urban areas

  (Population density: more than 3 persons per acre—South Glamorgan)

  7

  14

  Rural areas

  (Population density: between 0.5 and 3 persons per acre—Clwyd, Gwent, Mid and West Glamorgan)

  8

  18

  Sparsley populated areas

  (Population density: less than 0.5 persons per acre—East Dyfed, Gwynedd, Pembrokeshire and Powys)

  8

  21

  55
  Information for the year ending 31 March 1994 is not yet available. The latest available information, for the nine months ending 31 December 1993, is shown in the following table.

  Percentage of ambulances arriving within

  50 per cent. standard response time

  95 per cent. standard response time

  Clwyd

  61

  97

  East Dyfed

  58

  94

  Gwent1

  51

  96

  Gwynedd

  56

  95

  Mid Glamorgan

  55

  97

  Pembrokeshire

  45

  90

  Powys1

  44

  88

  South Glamorgan1

  56

  94

  West Glamorgan

  57

  93

  Staff in post as at 31 December 19931

  Male

  Female

  Number

  Wte2

  Number

  Wte2

  Administrative and clerical 3:

  Grade 1

  7

  5.0

  50

  26.8

  Grade 2

  337

  315.9

  3,484

  2,469.4

  Grade 3

  250

  247.8

  2,660

  2,310.1

  Grade 4

  228

  223.1

  1,354

  1,270.4

  Grade 5

  271

  266.4

  495

  478.3

  Grade 6

  238

  235.1

  237

  224.0

  Grade 7

  108

  105.3

  63

  58.1

  Grade 8

  28

  28.0

  7

  7.0

  Grade 9

  7

  7.0

  —

  —

  Grade 10

  7

  7.0

  —

  —

  Sandwich course student

  2

  1.4

  —

  —

  Regional finance trainee

  12

  12.0

  27

  27.0

  General management trainee

  5

  5.0

  9

  9.0

  Not known4

  32

  30.6

  184

  165.2

  Ancillary:

  Upholsterer

  3

  3.0

  —

  —

  Scale A

  63

  44.8

  282

  150.0

  Scale B

  1,943

  1,766.4

  5,645

  3,295.8

  Scale C

  256

  241.4

  515

  370.3

  Scale D

  31

  31.0

  45

  30.8

  Scale E

  10

  10.0

  13

  9.6

  Scale I

  58

  57.1

  269

  216.2

  Scale II

  85

  84.9

  123

  116.0

  Scale III

  59

  59.0

  48

  47.1

  Scale IV

  62

  62.0

  44

  39.9

  Not known4

  10

  10.0

  176

  122.6

  Senior managers5 6

  128

  127.5

  48

  47.4

  Ambulance staff7:

  Trainee

  33

  33.0

  7

  7.0

  Ambulanceman/women

  164

  114.8

  52

  34.2

  Qualified

  518

  518.0

  33

  33.0

  Leading

  107

  107.0

  2

  2.0

  Ambulance officers7:

  Band I

  25

  25.0

  3

  3.0

  Band II

  44

  44.0

  3

  3.0

  Assistant senior

  15

  15.0

  —

  —

  Senior

  8

  8.0

  —

  —

  Principal

  1

  1.0

  —

  —

  General Managers/Chief Executives6

  35

  35.0

  6

  6.0

  1 Includes staff employed by Health Authorities, NHS Trusts, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and those Family Health Service Authorities using the health authorities payroll system.

  Staff (other than medical and dental) paid on local payscales who cannot be assigned to a staff group centrally are excluded. These staff numbered in total around 532 whole-time equivalents at 31 December 1993.

  2 Whole-time equivalents.

  3 Excluding staff on managerial pay scales.

  4 Staff paid on local pay scales who can be assigned to a staff group centrally but for whom no details of grade are available.

  5 All staff paid on senior manager pay scales.

  56
  1 Part of the area managed by the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust.

  NHS Staff Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women were employed at the latest available date for each grade in the administrative and clerical pay group and the ancillary staffs pay groups of the national health service, for grades 0 to 12 in the senior managers pay group, for each grade in the ambulance staffs pay group and the ambulance officers pay group, and for general managers and chief executives in the national health service; and if he will express the figures as numbers and as full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information available is given in the following table.
  57
  6 Excluding staff paid on local pay scales for whom no details of grade are available, although they can be assigned centrally to the managerial staff group. These staff numbered around 13 whole-time equivalents at 31 December 1993.

  7 Excluding staff employed by the South and East Wales NHS Ambulance Trust, for whom no details are available yet centrally for 31 December 1993. These staff numbered around 509 whole-time equivalents at 31 December 1993.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS trusts in Wales he expects to reach their target of six per cent. return on capital for the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Thirteen.

  Prince of Wales Orthopaedic Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it a condition of continued funding for the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar near Cardiff treatment centre that the centre discontinues the use of the Zimmer CPT artificial hip joint pending resolution of that hip joint's failure rate.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Zimmer is on the Department of Health's register of approved manufacturers.

  Sewage Infrastructure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of Welsh Water plc and the Director General of Water Services in relation to the sum allocated for sewerage infrastructure renewal and not spent for the purpose allocated in the period 1989 to 1993; and what proposals he has to amend the financial arrangements with the regulated water company and the regulator in relation to each undertaking.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not discussed this matter with the chairman of Welsh Water plc or the Director General of Water Services. By 1995, Dwr Cymru will have spent nearly £1.1 billion on capital investment, well in excess of the amount allowed for in price limits set at privatisation.

  Mr. Geoffrey Drake
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what information he had regarding, and what consideration he gave to, the departure of Geoffrey Drake from his employment at Penrhyn quarries before appointing him chairman of the Gwynedd acute hospitals trust;

  (2) if he appointed executive selection consultants in relation to the appointment of the post of chairman of the Gwynedd acute hospitals trust; and what references were (a) sought and (b) received in relation to Mr. Geoffrey Drake the previous managing director of the Pertrhyn quarries subsidiary of Sir Alfred McAlpine plc. by himself and any such executive selection consultants concerning the post;

  (3) what consultations he had with the management of the Sir Alfred McAlpine Group prior to, and in relation to, the appointment of Mr. Geoffrey Drake as chairman of the Gwynedd acute hospitals trust.

  Mr. Redwood
  Executive search consultants were not involved in the appointment of Mr. Drake to chair the Gwynedd hospitals NHS trust. In selecting candidates for appointment, the Department makes such inquiries about 58
  individuals and undertakes such consultations as seem appropriate in each case. To disclose what those were in regard to Mr. Drake would be to breach the confidence of those involved.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the suitability of Mr. Geoffrey Drake as chairman of the Gwynedd acute hospitals trust(a) before his appointment and (b) since his appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 4 March,Official Report, column 910. Since that date I have received, and replied to, two further letters from the hon. Member about Mr. Drake's appointment.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers and percentages of students in higher education undertaking two-year diploma courses and three and four-year degree courses in each of the past 10 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number and percentage of students in higher education in Wales who undertook either a two-year diploma course or a three or four-year degree course in 1992–93 is shown in the following table. Information for years prior to 1992–93 are not readily available and I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Full time undergraduate students in Wales, 1992–93

  Number

  Percentage

  First degree

  Three years

  24,634

  52.8

  Four years

  11,506

  24.6

  Higher National Diploma

  Two years

  4,085

  8.7

  Other courses at University of Wales

  Any length

  3,304

  7.1

  Other courses at other institutions

  Any length

  3,133

  6.7

  All full time undergraduates

  46,662

  100.0

  Source: FESR & Universities' Statistical Record.

  Press Relations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to commence using electronic mail for the distribution of press releases.

  Mr. Redwood
  Some press notices are distributed to the media in London by the Central Office of Information's electronic service. I have no plans to extend this at present, but the matter is kept under review.

HEALTH NHS

  Nurses
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the numbers of qualified, unqualified and learner nursing staff who joined the NHS in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for 1993 is shown in the table. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 21 June 1993,Official Report, columns 28–29 for information on previous years.

  1993

  Numbers

  Qualified

  12,590

  Unqualified

  n/a

  WTE (1993)

  Qualified

  11,810

  Unqualified

  n/a

  Pre-registration nursing Initial entries and re-entries

  Level 1

  11992–93

  Traditional

  3,886

  P20002

  12,035

  1 Year ending 31 March 1993.

  2 Project 2000 learners are regarded as supernumerary and are not included in workforce numbers.

  Totals taken from ENB Annual Report 1992–93 (Table 5–2).

  Source: 1991 KM45 and KM46, 1992 onwards KM48.

  n/a = not available.

  All figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures for 1992 are based on returns from 12 regions. For 1993 numbers are based on returns from 11 regions and whole time equivalents on returns from 12.

  Child Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she intends to take in relation to child care following the ruling of the High Court on 16 March in relation to child minders hitting children in their care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have now studied the High Court judgment. It gives a clear ruling that the Department's guidance on the use of corporal punishment by child minders should be read in the context of the whole guidance document. Local authorities should not apply guidance so strictly that a person seeking registration as a child minder under part X of the Children Act 1989, who is in conflict with part of it, is automatically found to be unfit to be a child minder. The Department considers it unnecessary to introduce regulations. We are considering whether further clarification of the guidance is desirable.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the underspending or overspending for each regional health authority on its 1992–93 budget, showing in each case the net contribution to such spending changes made by(a) negligence claims, (b) capital accounts and (c) general practitioner fundholders.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Regional health authorities are not allowed to 60
  overspend their combined capital and revenue cash limits. In 1992–93, RHAs had general approval to carry forward up to 0.5 per cent. of their combined revenue and capital cash limits. The contribution of negligence claims and general practitioner fundholders to any underspending is not required for operational purposes, and is therefore not separately identifiable in the information available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of regional health authorities for details.

  Region

  Total over/under(-)spend on cash limits1 £000

  Over/under(-)spend on capital cash limits £000

  Northern

  -4,000

  -6,838

  Yorkshire

  -4,000

  -1,983

  Trent

  -2,465

  -269

  East Anglian

  -3,000

  -2,563

  North West Thames

  -5,629

  -1,587

  North East Thames

  0

  -5,094

  South East Thames

  0

  -941

  South West Thames

  -2,000

  1,334

  Wessex

  -3,042

  8,183

  Oxford

  0

  122

  South Western

  -7,018

  -1,331

  West Midlands

  0

  -6,114

  Mersey

  0

  -477

  North Western

  0

  -197

  1 This column represents the cash underdrawing against the combined capital and revenue cash limit.

  North Yorkshire FHSA
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by North Yorkshire family health services authority in 1993–94; and what is its budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1993–94 outturn data are not yet available. Allocations for cash-limited general medical services expenditure and for the family health services authority's administration costs are determined by the regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, Mr. John Greetham, for details.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS abortions were performed on women who were under 13 weeks pregnant and resident(a) in each regional health authority and (b) in each district health authority in England and Wales in 1992; and how many of these operations involved admissions and discharge of the patient on the same day.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested will be placed in the Library. The number of national health service abortions includes abortions carried out in the private sector on NHS patients.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were performed in England and Wales on women who were resident in each health and social services board area in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Alcohol Concern
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants have been made over the last five years to Alcohol Concern.

  Mr. Bowis
  Alcohol Concern receives grant from several sources. The Department of Health awarded the following amounts from 1989–90 to 1993–94. The figures include sums available to Alcohol Concern disbursement to voluntary agencies for providing local services for alcohol misusers. These amounts are given in brackets.

  Year

  Amount (£)

  £

  1989–90

  583,000

  (200,000)

  1990–91

  603,000

  (220,000)

  1991–92

  1,723,500

  (1,310,000)

  1992–93

  2,693,000

  (2,265,000)

  1993–94

  2,575,650

  (2,130,000)

  Redundancies
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what limits are placed on the total redundancy package for individuals in the health service;

  (2) what are the limits placed on individual redundancy payments for staff in the health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Redundancy payments for national health service staff employed on national terms and conditions of service, other than general managers and senior managers engaged on short-term rolling contracts, are governed by section 45 of the General Whitley Council handbook, copies of which are available in the Library. The limit on the maximum amount which can be paid is covered by paragraphs 2.4, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of section 45. Although general managers and senior managers engaged on short-term rolling contracts do not benefit from the provisions of section 45, they are still entitled to statutory redundancy payments.

  Staff over the age of 50 with more than five years service who are made redundant are entitled to premature retirement benefits provided by section 46 of the General Whitley Council handbook.

  NHS Management Executive
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 13 April,Official Report, column 203, if she will list the dates and locations for the first meetings of the eight regional outposts of the NHS management executive which the public may attend.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The regional offices of the national health service executive are part of the Department of Health, not separate public bodies, and will therefore not hold public meetings.

  Reported cases of salmonellosis in England and wales, 1992 and 1993

  1992

  1993

  NHS region

  1Number

  2Rate

  1Number

  2Rate

  Northern

  1,569

  50.6

  1,629

  526

  Yorkshire

  3,273

  88.5

  2,888

  78.1

  Trent

  2,480

  52.3

  2,734

  57.6

  East Anglia

  1,347

  64.5

  1,385

  66.3

  North West Thames

  2,083

  58.0

  2,108

  58.7

  North East Thames

  2,058

  54.2

  2,134

  56.2

  South East Thames

  2,234

  60.2

  2,009

  54.1

  South West Thames

  1,946

  64.0

  1,770

  58.2

  Wessex

  1,871

  62.5

  1,893

  63.2

  Northern and North Yorkshire Health Authority
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) revenue and (b) capital was spent on behalf of North Yorkshire patients by Yorkshire regional health authority in 1993–94; and what is the equivalent estimated expenditure of the new combined Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority in 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on revenue spending on the residents of specific districts is not collected by the Department since it is not required for operational reasons. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, Mr. John Greetham, for details.

  Capital is now largely spent by national health service trusts. The benefits of such expenditure are received by residents of any district health authority who are treated by particular trusts.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cash and standard price allocation for each health authority in the northern region in 1992–93 and 1994–95, and what was the effect of(a) regional bridging loans and (b) transitional allocations together with any underspending for 1992–93.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by North Yorkshire health authority in 1993–94; and what is its budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to allocate resources to their district health authorities. Information on the total allocations and cash limits made by regions to districts is not required for operational purposes and is therefore not collected by the Department. The hon. Members may wish to contact the chairman of the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, Mr. John Greetham, to request details of the 1994–95 budget. Information on 1993–94 expenditure by North Yorkshire health authority will become available from the annual accounts when these are received later in the year.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many salmonella cases occurred(a) nationally and (b) in each NHS region (1) in absolute terms and (2) per head of population for (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. Figures for 1993 are provisional.
  63

  1992

  1993

  NHS region

  1Number

  2Rate

  1Number

  2Rate

  Oxford

  1,582

  61.3

  1,665

  64.5

  South Western

  2,266

  68.3

  2,260

  68.2

  West Midlands

  2,879

  54.6

  2,673

  50.7

  Mersey

  1,131

  46.9

  974

  40.4

  North Western

  2,719

  67.7

  2.553

  63.5

  Wales

  1,917

  66.1

  1,978

  68.2

  Total

  31,355

  61.2

  30,653

  59.8

  1 Figures are for laboratory confirmed cases of salmonella in humans reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  2 Rates are expressed as laboratory confirmed cases per 100,000 population.

  In-patient Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing(a) for each year since 1990 the number of beds available for the in-patient treatment of (i) the mentally ill and (ii) patients with learning difficulties and (b) the number of residential care places available in private, voluntary sector and local authority care of those with (1) mental illness and (2) learning difficulties in each year.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.

  NHS available beds

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Mental illness

  55,239

  50,278

  47,294

  Learning disability

  23,379

  21,382

  17,896

  Staffed residential care places

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Mental illness

  Local authority

  5,730

  5,740

  5,560

  Voluntary

  3,080

  3,510

  4,300

  Private

  9,070

  9,270

  10,380

  Learning disability

  Local authority

  14,030

  13,760

  13,400

  Voluntary

  7,890

  9,510

  11,200

  Private

  8,380

  9,380

  10,040

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholders underspent in 1991–92; what was the average underspend of those general practitioners; and what information she has on how that underspend has been used.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1991–92, 243 general practitioner fundholders made savings on their budgets averaging about £60,000. Savings so far have been used to clear waiting lists and to purchase equipment and improve practice premises to develop services for patients.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to deduct general practitioner fundholding overspends in previous years from any underspends in subsequent years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. General practitioner fund-holders' budgets have to be managed in year. Regional health authorities manage any fundholder overspends from within their allocations in the same way as any other accountable expenditure. Fundholders' savings are reinvested in patient care.

  Consultant Merit Awards
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what way she is planning to change the consultant merit award system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are considering the report of the working party on the review of the consultants' distinction awards scheme.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish information from the latest regional task force returns on the number of junior doctors working more than 83 hours per week by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Task force returns for 30 September 1993, the latest date for which information is available, do not contain detailed data on hours of work which are monitored locally.

  Smear Tests
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many laboratories report a smear test as cytology negative when no endocervical cells have been seen on the slide;

  (2) what guidance has been issued on action to be taken when a cervical smear test is found to have no endocervical cells.

  Mr. Sackville
  The absence of columnar glandular endocervical cells does not in itself constitute an indication for a repeat smear if the smear is assessed in the laboratory as satisfactory according to recommended criteria. Where a patient's smear is shown by the laboratory to be unsatisfactory, she is invited to have a smear as soon as possible.

  Financial Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the name of companies and organisations used as financial consultants in 1992–93 to her Department, the national health service management executive and any centrally run patient care services, not including trusts and health authority direct spending; and which financial consultants had a contract of more than £500,000.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 21 March,Official Report, column 72. It is not possible to identify separately expenditure on management and financial consultancy.

  Whipps Cross Hospital
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions the Minister for Health had about accident and emergency services during his visit to Whipps Cross hospital on 21 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I saw work under way on the £750,000 upgrading of the accident and emergency department. I learnt of plans to appoint three additional consultants and to make a number of service improvements. I am delighted that 98 per cent. of people attending the department are assessed by a nurse within four minutes of arrival.

  Ophthalmology Services, Leeds
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Leeds healthcare patients receiving ophthalmology treatment at the united Leeds teaching hospitals during 1993–94; and how many of those were treated in February and March.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the district health authority, Leeds healthcare. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Pam Smith, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Ambulance Services, Humberside
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Humberside ambulance trust will next hold a public meeting; and on what date was its last public meeting.

  Outstanding clinical grading appeals: Situation as at 1 April 1994

  Region

  Employing authority level

  To be heard by central adjudication panel

  Total

  North West

  189

  815

  1,004

  North Thames

  55

  687

  742

  Trent

  0

  734

  734

  Northern and Yorkshire

  31

  674

  705

  West Midlands

  134

  425

  559

  South Thames

  0

  484

  484

  South West

  0

  351

  351

  Anglia and Oxford

  0

  204

  204

  Total

  409

  4,374

  4,783

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentages of ambulances in each service in England responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Departmental Advice
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice her Department or the national health service management executive has provided to chairmen and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals on conducting health promotion campaigns and large-scale mail drops during the period of the local government and European elections; and if she will place that advice in the Library;

  (2) what advice her Department or the national health service management executive has provided to chairmen
  66
  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Trusts (Public Meetings) Regulations 1991 state that all national health service trusts are required to hold a public meeting on or before 30 September in every year, other than that which includes the first operational date of the trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Margaret Cracknell, the chairman of Humberside ambulance service national health service trust, for details of the 1994 public meeting.

  Clinical Grading Appeals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by region of origin, the number of outstanding clinical grading appeals at(a) district, (b) regional and (c) national level; and if she will estimate the cost to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of appeals outstanding has dropped from just over 20,000 at 31 May 1993 to below 4,800 at 1 April 1994. We welcome this reduction. The Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council has agreed a new appeals mechanism for clearing all outstanding appeals by the end of 1995. All appeals outstanding at regional and national level will be heard by a new central adjudication panel. Information on the number of appeals outstanding is shown in the table. No estimate of the cost has been made.

  and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals on whether to launch high-profile publicity campaigns during the period leading up to the local government and European Parliament elections;

  (3) what advice her Department or the national health service management executive has provided to chairmen and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals on whether controversial proposals should be included on agendas of health authority meetings during the local government and European elections;

  (4) what advice her Department or the national health service management executive has provided to chairmen and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals on the circulation of information and answers to questions during the period of the local government elections and European elections; and if she will place that advice in the Library;

  (5) what advice her Department or the national health service management executive has provided to chairmen and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals on how to deal

  67
  with media inquiries during the period of local government elections and European elections; and if she will place that advice in the Library;

  (6) if her Department or the national health service management executive will advise chairmen and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals that any lectures taking place in the period leading up to the local government and European elections should be confined to published facts and avoid speculation on future health policy;

  (7) when her Department or the national health service management executive provided advice to chairmen and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals that, if they are uncertain about how to respond to requests from candidates, the media, or opposition spokespersons during the local government and European elections they should consult the NHS executive corporate affairs intelligence unit, head of news at the Department of Health or chief regional press officer;

  (8) what advice her Department or the national health service management executive has provided to chairmen and chief executives of NHS trust hospitals on campaigning and canvassing on health authority property during the period of the local government elections and European elections; and if she will place that advice in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service executive issued EL(94)36, to remind NHS chief executives and general managers of the well-established principle that NHS staff should not be asked to engage in activities which could give rise to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes and to give guidance on some specific issues. Similar guidance was issued before the last general election, in March 1992. Copies of EL(94)36 are available in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether it is her intention to require private companies operating contracts from NHS bodies to have established procedures covering freedom of speech;

  (2) whether the guidance for staff on relations with the public and media is applicable to staff of private contractors operating under contracts with the NHS;

  (3) whether the guidance for staff on relations with the public and media is applicable to staff employed under joint arrangements between health service bodies and local authorities or voluntary organisations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 25 February,Official Report, column 525.

  Health Service Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which division within the NHS executive is responsible for monitoring the proportions of men and women in each grade in the NHS for compliance with the aims of Opportunity 2000.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service women's unit is responsible for monitoring performance on Opportunity 2000.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all chairs and members of all health authorities, including family health service authorities, giving details of occupation and gender.
  68
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The appointment of non-executive members to district health authorities and family health services authorities is a matter for the regional health authority. Information on chairmen and non-executive members of regional health authorities, and chairmen of DHAs and FHSAs and their occupations will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by name and position those chairs, members and non-executive directors of district health authorities, family health services authorities, NHS trusts, shadow NHS trusts and other NHS authorities who have dual appointments as chairs, members or non-executive directors of other district health authorities, FHSAs, NHS trusts, shadow NHS trusts and other NHS authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A list of those holding dual appointments is shown. This does not include information concerning non-executive members of district health authorities or family health services authorities, whose members are appointed by regional health authorities.Dr. Christopher Robinson: Chairman of Northumberland FHSA, and non-executive member of Northern and Yorkshire RHA
  Mrs. Rosemary Hawley: Chairman of Liverpool FHSA, and non-executive member of North West RHA
  Mr. Manfred Dessau: Chairman of Nottinghamshire FHSA, and non-executive member of Trent RHA
  Mrs. Elspeth Metcalfe: Chairman of Hereford and Worcester FHSA, and non-executive member of West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Peter Gell: Chairman of Buckinghamshire FHSA, and non-executive member of Anglia and Oxford RHA
  Mrs. Jill Stern: Chairman of Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow FHSA, and non-executive member of North Thames RHA
  Mrs. Anne Swain: Chairman of West Sussex FHSA, and non-executive member of South Thames RHA
  Dr. Dale Ferguson-Hudson: Chairman of Isle of Wight FHSA, and non-executive member of South and West RHA
  Mrs. Alison Cook: Chairman of Bamsley DHA, and non-executive member of the NHS Supplies Authority
  Miss Catherine McLoughlin: Chairman of Bromley DHA and non-executive member of the NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Frederick Hoult: Chairman of the Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, and non-executive member of the NHS Supplies Authority
  Mrs. Phyllida Entwistle: Chairman of the Furness Hospitals NHS Trust, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission
  Miss Georgina Linton: non-executive director of Guy's and Lewisham Mental Health NHS Trust, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission
  Mrs. Lotte Mason: non-executive director of Ravensbourne Priority Health NHS Trust, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission
  Professor Elaine Murphy: non-executive director of North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission

  Each regional health authority is required to include among its non-executive members the chairman of a family health services authority. Appointees to other NHS bodies are permitted to be appointed as members of the NHS Supplies Authority and the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Hospital Staff (Terms and Conditions of Service)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department has had regarding paragraph 330 of the terms and conditions of service for hospital medical and dental staff.
  69
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This provision has been the subject of discussions with the medical profession. There is no intention to amend this provision for those medical staff who remain on national terms and conditions of service.

  Bridget O'Connell
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to resolve the dispute between North East Thames regional health authority and paediatrician Bridget O'Connell; what has been(a) the cost and (b) the duration of the dispute to date; who is being held responsible for the cost; and what disciplinary measures are proposed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for North Thames regional health authority. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, the chairman, for details.

  Child Psychotherapists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child psychotherapists were working in the NHS in each region for the latest available year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]: The latest figures available are shown in the table.

  Child Psychotherapists employed in the National Health Service in England at 30 September 1992

  England

  Whole term equivalent

  Northern

  15

  Yorkshire

  15

  Trent

  5

  East Anglian

  *

  North West Thames

  50

  North East Thames

  65

  South East Thames

  25

  South West Thames

  25

  Wessex

  5

  Oxford

  5

  South Western

  10

  West Midlands

  5

  Mersey

  5

  North Western

  10

  SHAs

  10

  TOTAL

  255

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. *indicates greater than zero but less than 2.5.

  3. The overall total does not equal the sum of components due to rounding.

  Source: National Health Service Non-Medical Workforce Census.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care were taken off income support following the award of maintenance payments by the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage that was of all the parents with care in receipt of income support in whose care an assessment has been finalised.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  70
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the annual report of the Child Support Agency for 1993–94 will be published.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 22 April 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the publication of the Child Support Agency's annual report.
  The Agency aims to publish an annual report by the late summer of 1994. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House, and will also be available from the Agency's headquarters.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the arrears of maintenance currently outstanding on Child Support Agency assessments; and what percentage this is of the total that should have been paid at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 22 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the arrears of maintenance currently outstanding on Child Support Agency assessments.
  The Child Support Computer System is being upgraded to provide the information requested, but validated data is not currently available.
  I am sorry not to be more helpful.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases an arrestment of wages has been carried out by the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, 22 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of cases in whch the Child Support Agency carried out an arrestment of wages.
  To the end of March 1994, deductions from earnings orders had been carried out in an estimated 2,600 cases.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly sum set by the Child Support Agency as a maintenance payment at the latest date for which figures are available(a) including and (b) excluding cases where the absent parent is on benefit and contributing only £2.20 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  71
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 22 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the average weekly sum of child maintenance.
  I am afraid that information is not available in the form requested. Overall, however, we estimate that average weekly maintenance assessments by the Agency are approximately £45–£50 a week.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have reached agreements for payments with the Child Support Agency are(a) registered unemployed and (b) in employment.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 22 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of clients of the Child Support Agency who are unemployed or in work.
  I am afraid that information is not available in the form that you have requested. However, information is available on the number of maintenance assessments completed where the absent parent was in receipt of income support. At 28 February 1994, there had been 36,000 such assessments.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what money has been received as a result of the activities of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to the reply, 25 March 1994, column 452]: Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, has informed me that the figure of £181 million is incorrect and should read £169 million.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Hague
  The POLIS database has been able to identify 352 questions which were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost or because the information was not held centrally in the five calendar years 1989–93. Details of each of those questions can be obtained from the POLIS database in the Library. Information on how many of these could now be answered is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she proposes to prevent the ill-treatment of sheep imported from Spain.

  Mr. Soames
  No consignments of sheep for slaughter have been imported from Spain since 22 March, when this Department took immediate action to intercept a consignment and to safeguard the welfare of the animals. Close liaison was maintained with the local authorities concerned, which are investigating the case with a view to prosecution. The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 contains powers for similar action to be taken as necessary in relation to any future consignments.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mechanisms there are to record the number of farm animals injured during transport to other EC member states.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no official mechanisms of this kind.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the current discussions of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the welfare of animals during transport.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Members for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 24 March, at column 370.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many private security firms have been employed by her Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if she will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Jack
  The following is the number of private firms employed for each financial year with the calculated annual total value of all contracts and the guards employed. The figures do not include the employment of guards on a short-term ad hoc basis.

  Number of firms

  Value (£'000)

  Guard posts

  1984–85

  7

  170

  18

  1985–86

  7

  277

  20

  1986–87

  7

  297

  20

  1987–88

  7

  312

  20

  1988–89

  7

  329

  20

  1989–90

  7

  358

  21

  1990–91

  7

  469

  21

  1991–92

  7

  534

  22

  1992–93

  8

  650

  23

  1993–94

  8

  705

  23

  Increases in recent years in the cost of guarding is due to the provision of more comprehensive security cover at a number of vulnerable sites.

  Fishermen (Subsidies)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total payments to fishing vessel owners on(a) subsidies and support, (b) compensation for loss of fishing and (c) decommissioning in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Jack
  The following information on construction and modernisation grants and on decommissioning is readily available.

  Construction and modernisation grants

  Expenditure year by year is shown below, except that the figures prior to 1982–83 relate to grant approvals rather than to grant expenditure.

  £ million

  1977–78

  5.0

  1978–79

  5.4

  1979–80

  7.0

  1980–81

  5.2

  1981–82

  3.8

  1982–83

  8.1

  1983–84

  9.1

  1984–85

  12.3

  1985–86

  15.8

  1986–87

  19.1

  1987–88

  21.6

  1988–89

  19.8

  1989–90

  10.1

  1990–91

  7.7

  1991–92

  3.7

  1992–93

  1.2

  Decommissioning

  Expenditure on decommissioning between 1983 and 1986 totalled £18.4 million, and a further £7.8 million was spent under the 1993 scheme. There were no decommissioning schemes between 1974 and 19:33 and between 1986 and 1993.

  Grey Squirrels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her policy on measures to reduce grey squirrel populations in Britain.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not practical to reduce the number of grey squirrels over the whole of Britain. The Government's policy is, therefore, to control grey squirrels in those areas where they are causing significant damage to broad-leaved trees and in those areas where there are red squirrels present.

  Grey squirrels, unlike our native red squirrels, are not a protected species. Responsibility for the general control of grey squirrels lies with individual landowners and occupiers, who are free to use any legal method of control, including traps, approved pesticides and shooting if they feel that this is necessary to prevent damage.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will give details of her advice to landowners wishing to kill grey squirrels;

  (2) if she will specify which (a) poisons and (b) traps she advises for killing grey squirrels.

  Mr. Soames
  Grey squirrels, unlike our native red squirrels, are not a protected species, and they may be killed by owners and occupiers of property and land if they feel this is necessary to prevent damage. Recommended methods of killing squirrels are by poisoning or trapping.

  Except in the counties specified in the Grey Squirrel (Warfarin) Order 1973, grey squirrels may be killed
  74
  outdoors by the use of the anticoagulant poison warfarin. When used outdoors, the bait must be presented in a hopper of the dimensions and specification given in the 1973 order. Warfarin may be used inside a building throughout England without the use of a hopper.

  Spring traps set in artificial or naturally occurring tunnels may be used but are not recommended for areas where red squirrels are present. Only traps authorised for use against squirrels under a spring trap approval order may be used. Single and multi-catch traps may be used in any part of the country for the live capture of grey squirrels and any grey squirrels so caught should be humanely despatched. It is an offence under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to release any captured grey squirrel.

  Advice on controlling grey squirrels is available from both ADAS and the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence she has that grey squirrels are a problem in the British countryside.

  Mr. Soames
  The Forestry Commission's annual survey and the Timber Growers Association's 1991 survey both show that grey squirrels are causing serious damage to a wide range of tree species by stripping the bark from the trees and that they are threatening the success of the Government's policy for maintaining the existing broad-leaved woodlands and establishing new ones. Landowners report that they may have to stop planting trees in certain areas because grey squirrels make it impossible to establish the trees. Grey squirrels can, in some situations, cause serious damage to cereals, top and soft fruit, bulbs and root crops.

  In addition, grey squirrels rob the nests of woodland nesting birds such as thrushes, tits and nuthatches, as well as killing young birds and competing for breeding sites. There is circumstantial evidence that grey squirrels compete with red squirrels and that the number of red squirrels in Britain has declined in recent years with the increase in the population of greys.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research her officials have carried out into humane methods of killing or controlling grey squirrels.

  Mr. Soames
  As grey squirrels cause serious damage primarily to trees, research into humane methods of killing or controlling them is carried out by the Forestry Commission.

  The commission has carried out research work on the development, testing and methods of deployment of cage traps and is also undertaking research into alternative silvicultural systems which may reduce the amount of damage caused by grey squirrels. The use of reproductive inhibitors has also been investigated but a practical way of using these has not yet been found.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate has been made of the economic damage caused to forests by grey squirrels.

  Mr. Soames
  It is estimated that the damage to forests caused by grey squirrels leads to a loss in excess of £1 million each year.

  Pest Control
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of research projects funded or undertaken by her officials or the Agricultural Development Advisory Service into controlling pest species by contraceptive bait and other non-violent means.

  Mr. Soames
  Listed are the research projects currently funded by the Ministry on non-violent means of pest control. The Ministry does not currently undertake any research on contraceptive baits for the control of vertebrate pests. The two projects for immunocontraceptives for rabbits shown involve the development of immunocontraceptive vaccines and include oral administration of vaccines but not field baiting. Once promising vaccines have been developed, field studies including baiting will be commissioned. Preparatory field research, without the use of vaccines, is planned to begin in 1995–96 in order to collect baseline data.

  The Forestry Commission is carrying out research on deer-proof fencing, repellants and the use of genetics and tree breeding to produce natural compounds to deter deer; and on the use of tree guards against rabbits.

  MAFF research projects on the control of vertebrate pests by non-violent means

  1. Strategic monitoring and modelling of bird pest populations to predict damage, damage limitation and the impact of agriculture on population.

  2. Prevention of damage by birds using naturally occurring stimuli.

  3. Predicting damage to winter wheat in relation to the density of rabbits and the timing of population control.

  4. Developing humane, environmentally acceptable and cost-effective techniques for reducing rabbit numbers or otherwise preventing crop damage.

  5. Modelling rabbit populations and designing control packages.

  6. Uteroglobin as an immunocontraceptive vaccine.

  7. Irreversible immucontraception for the control of wild rabbits.

  8. Devising a procedure to be followed when badgers may have to be removed from a sett.

  9. Mammalian pheromones and their use in pest control.

  10. The management of mammal pests in farm woodlands.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times her officials inspect a licensed mink farm each year to ensure compliance with the security arrangements of the Mink (Keeping) Order 1992.

  Imports of veal, fresh or chilled or frozen—Weight in metric tones

  1985

  1986

  11987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Carcases, half-carcases or "compensated" quarters of a unit weight of 136 kg or less for carcases or "compensated" quarters, or of a unit weight of not more than 68 kg for half-carcases, fresh or chilled

  France

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  85

  93

  0

  Holland

  131

  73

  41

  13

  8

  18

  6

  1

  Italy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Separated or unseparated forequarters, of a unit weight of 60 kg or less for unseparated forequarters, or of a unit weight of 30 kg or less for separate forequarters, fresh or chilled

  France

  0

  0

  5

  157

  0

  20

  40

  156

  Holland

  0

  14

  0

  9

  6

  1

  6

  0

  Italy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  76
  Mr. Soames
  Licensed mink farms are inspected at least annually by the Agriculture Development Advisory Service before a licence is renewed to ensure that the security arrangements meet the stringent requirements of the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975. Further inspections may be made at any time during the year to ensure that the security arrangements have not deteriorated since the last inspection.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farms are currently operating in England.

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 March 1994, there were 10 licensed mink farms operating in England.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspections were carried out by her officials last year to ensure security arrangements at licensed mink farms complied with the Mink (Keeping) Order 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  During the 1993–94 financial year, 17 inspections of mink farms were carried out by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service on behalf of the Ministry.

  Deformed Fish (North Sea)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on recent incidents of deformed fish caught in the North sea, indicating where the fish were caught.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry has routinely monitored fish caught in the North sea for many years and there has been no recent increase in the landings of deformed fish.

  Veal
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the tonnage of veal imported into Britain from(a) France, (b) Holland and (c) Italy in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  Data are available for imports into the United Kingdom of carcases, half-carcases and hindquarters and forequarters of veal and for boneless cuts from veal and this information is shown for years 1985 to 1982 in the table. Other information on cuts of veal or veal products is not available.
  77

  1985

  1986

  11987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Separated or unseparated hindquarters, of a unit weight of 75 kg or less for unseparated hind-quarters, or of a unit weight of 40 kg or less for separate hindquarters, fresh or chilled

  France

  0

  17

  6

  7

  74

  35

  36

  4

  Holland

  1,303

  1,275

  1,356

  306

  532

  369

  441

  503

  Italy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Boneless cuts from veal, fresh or chilled

  France

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  136

  152

  838

  489

  612

  Holland

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  738

  261

  504

  962

  464

  Italy

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Source: Her Majesty's Coustoms and Excise.

  1 Discontinuties in the series between 1987 and 1988 are due to changes of classification.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves were exported to veal crates in(a) France, (b) Italy and (c) Holland; and how many in each case were exported for (i) further fattening and (ii) immediate slaughter, in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  No information is available on the system of husbandry for which particular consignments of calves exported from the United Kingdom are intended.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the consumption of veal in Britain in each year since 1985 which came from(a) Britain, (b) France, (c) Italy and (d) Holland.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of veal consumption are shown in the table.

  Veal consumption in the United Kingdom — source of supply

  Weight in thousand tonnes

  Year

  United Kingdom

  France

  Italy

  Netherlands

  1985

  4.7

  0.0

  0.0

  1.4

  1986

  1.8

  0.0

  0.0

  1.4

  1987

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  1.4

  1988

  0.6

  0.3

  0.0

  1.0

  1989

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.8

  1990

  1.5

  0.9

  0.0

  0.9

  Animals inspected and certified as fit for transportation prior to export

  Immediate Slaughter

  Further Fattening

  Year

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Cattle

  Calves

  Sheep

  Pigs

  1985

  150

  10,381

  none

  none

  142,427

  11,761

  none

  1986

  187

  154,017

  none

  none

  190,683

  7,745

  1,321

  1987

  1.014

  182,781

  none

  574

  365,166

  130,775

  none

  1988

  136

  262,647

  none

  323

  234,651

  184,120

  none

  1989

  358

  216,886

  24

  1,712

  302,223

  275,006

  none

  1990

  175

  186,038

  none

  284

  338,806

  302,871

  none

  1991

  154

  196,870

  3,297

  187

  399,599

  576,632

  9,963

  1992

  115

  326,777

  691

  40

  420,620

  1,046,880

  1,911

  Source: "Animal Health—Report by the Chief Veterinary Officer", reports 1985 to 1992.

  Live Animals (Exports)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether records are kept of the number of farm animals which die during transport(a) within Britain and (b) to other EC member states.

  Mr. Soames
  Such information may be recorded in cases where possible offences against the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 were being investigated, either by inspectors of this Department or those of local authorities with enforcement responsibilities
  78

  Year

  United Kingdom

  France

  Italy

  Netherlands

  1991

  1.4

  0.7

  0.0

  1.4

  1992

  1.0

  0.8

  0.0

  10

  There is a discontinuity in the series between 1987 to 1988 in respect of imports due to changes of classification.

  Live animals (Exports)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she is taking to ensure that British animals exported for slaughter to Spain are killed in accordance with legislation designated to ensure humane slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 16 February,Official Report, column 847.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm animals are exported by species from Britain for(a) further fattening and (b) slaughter in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  Figures for exports from Great Britain in the years 1985 to 1992 are given in the following table. Figures are not available for 1993.

  under the Animal Health Act 1981. The information is not collected centrally. The recording of deaths of animals during transport from Great Britain which occurred within the territory of another member state would be a matter for the member state concerned.

  Spanish and Portuguese Accession
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) of 13 April,Official Report, columns 183–84, which member states (a) voted against and (b) abstained on the vote on the

  79
  presidency compromise proposal on the procedure to be followed for amending the current arrangements applying to Spanish and Portuguese access to the waters of other member states.

  Mr. Jack
  The presidency compromise proposal was adopted by qualified majority. Ireland voted against. No member state indicated abstention. Formal adoption of the legal text is planned to take place at a future meeting of the Council by "A" point procedure.

  Near-shore Fishing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to use the new regime of licensing for boats under 10 m to study the nature and distribution of near-shore fishing in United Kindom waters.

  Mr. Jack
  We shall keep activity in this sector under review.

  Farm Statistics
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proportion of(a) the total land mass and (b) the agricultural area of each English county

  Estimates of the total agricultural land (a) by county and FBS province in 1992

  Total agricultural land designated as:

  Proportion of total land mass (b) designated as:

  Proportion of agricultural area designated as:

  FBS province

  County

  SDA

  DA hectares

  LFA

  SDA per cent.

  DA per cent.

  LFA per cent.

  SDA per cent.

  DA per cent.

  LFA per cent.

  East Midland

  Derbyshire

  67,759

  13,824

  81,583

  26

  5

  31

  37

  8

  44

  67,759

  13,824

  81,583

  4

  1

  5

  6

  1

  7

  Northern

  Cumbria

  192,312

  40,427

  232,740

  28

  6

  34

  42

  9

  51

  Durham

  77,440

  11,873

  89,312

  32

  5

  37

  49

  8

  57

  Northumberland

  235,296

  23,594

  258,890

  47

  5

  51

  62

  6

  68

  505,048

  75,894

  580,942

  34

  5

  39

  50

  7

  57

  North Eastern

  Cleveland

  7,062

  1,766

  8,827

  12

  3

  15

  25

  6

  31

  North Yorkshire

  159,269

  47,565

  206,834

  19

  6

  25

  25

  7

  32

  South Yorkshire

  8,810

  6,141

  14,951

  6

  4

  10

  11

  7

  18

  West Yorkshire

  29,993

  9,305

  39,298

  15

  5

  19

  30

  9

  39

  205,134

  64,776

  296,910

  13

  4

  17

  19

  6

  25

  North Western

  Cheshire

  8,812

  1,619

  10,431

  4

  1

  4

  5

  1

  6

  Greater Manchester

  6,992

  4,873

  11,865

  5

  4

  9

  17

  12

  29

  Lancashire

  59,869

  41,076

  100,944

  20

  13

  33

  27

  19

  45

  Shropshire

  29,001

  13,632

  42,533

  8

  4

  12

  10

  5

  15

  Staffordshire

  12,711

  17,732

  30,443

  5

  7

  11

  6

  9

  15

  117,384

  78,832

  196,216

  9

  6

  14

  13

  8

  21

  Southern

  Hereford and Worcester

  10,689

  6,518

  17,207

  3

  2

  4

  3

  2

  6

  10,689

  6,518

  17,207

  ..

  ..

  1

  1

  ..

  1

  South Western

  Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly)

  11,171

  43,878

  55,048

  3

  12

  16

  4

  16

  20

  Devon

  71,394

  63,743

  135,137

  11

  9

  20

  14

  12

  26

  Somerset

  31,419

  2,038

  33,457

  9

  1

  10

  11

  1

  12

  113,983

  109,659

  223,642

  7

  7

  14

  9

  9

  18

  ENGLAND

  1,019,999

  349,604

  1,369,500

  8

  3

  11

  11

  4

  15

  Less than 0.5 per cent.

  (a) Area on main holdings with land in the SDA or DA excluding common rough grazing

  (b) Including inland water

  Sources: Agricultural Census, Municipal yearbook
  80
  and the counties as grouped together for the purposes of compiling the farm business survey, is designated (i) severely disadvantaged area, (ii) disadvantaged area and (iii) less-favoured area; and what are the figures for England as a whole;

  (2) what is the total hectarage of agricultural land for (a) each English county and (b) each farm business survey county group, which is designated (i) severely disadvantaged area, (ii) disadvantaged area and (c) less-favoured area according to the most recent unweighted figures from the annual farm census.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: The table provides the total hectarage of agricultural land on holdings designated as SDA, DA and LFA, as well as the proportions of total land mass and total agricultural area designated as SDA, DA and LFA, by English county and FBS province in 1992. The area of common rough grazing has been excluded from the figures of agricultural area as details are not available to show the breakdown between SDA, DA and non-LFA land.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves were exported to other member states in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of calves from the United Kingdom that have been exported to other member states of the EC since 1985 can be found in the annual volumes of the "Overseas Trade Statistics for the United Kingdom", copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Details of their classification within standard industrial waste classification 00 can be found in the "Guide to the Classification for Overseas Trade Statistics", which is also in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live farm animals were exported abroad in each year since 1985; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of live animals from the United Kingdom that have been exported abroad since 1985 can be found in the annual volumes of the "Overseas Trade Statistics for the United Kingdom", copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Details of their classification within SITC 00 can be found in the "Guide to the classification for Overseas Trade Statistics", which is also in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the tonnage of(a) lamb and (b) beef was imported into Britain from other member states in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  The tonnage of lamb and beef imported into the United Kingdom from other member states of the EC since 1985 can be found in the annual volumes of the "Overseas Trade Statistics for the United Kingdom", copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Details of their classification within SITC 00 can be found in the "Guide to the classification for Overseas Trade Statistics", which is also in the House of Commons Library.

DEFENCE

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of private security firms employed by my Department over the last 10 years and the annual value of contracts are as follows:

  Number of firms

  Annual value of contracts (£)

  1984–85

  7

  350,000

  1985–86

  9

  600,000

  1986–87

  11

  1,100,000

  1987–88

  10

  1,350,000

  82

  Number of firms

  Annual value of contracts (£)

  1988–89

  21

  1,900,000

  1989–90

  17

  4,841,000

  1990–91

  16

  4,760,000

  1991–92

  16

  4,532,000

  1992–93

  14

  5,136,000

  1993–94

  15

  6,535,000

  The number of guards used by a private firm in meeting its contractual requirement is a matter of judgment for the firm itself. Central records are not held by my Department of the number of private guards employed.

  Sailing Ships
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the expenditure by his Department on the construction of sailingn ships in each of the past 10 years; if he will give details of the names of such ships, their current use and what proportion of the cost of such ships was met by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: The MOD has procured 41 sail training craft for the services from public funds over the past 10 years. Sail training craft are procured for a number of training uses for service men and women including sea sense training, resource and initiative training, leadership training and adventurous sail training.

  Expenditure on these craft in each of the past 10 years is as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  1984–85

  54,000

  1985–86

  Nil

  1986–87

  Nil

  1987–88

  135,519

  1988–89

  Nil

  1989–90

  77,156

  1990–91

  1,202,225

  1991–92

  608,129

  1992–93

  533,754

  1993–94

  155,911

  The names of the craft and their current deployment are as follows:

  Amaryllis of Dart—Army Sailing Association

  Amaryllis of Dartmouth—Britannia Royal Naval College

  Amoria—HMS Hornet Gosport

  Callista—HMS Hornet Gosport

  Cornish Air—Royal Naval Air Station, Culdrose

  Disinia—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Ebsis—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Fimbra—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Foxbat—HMS Sultan, Gosport

  Foxbrush—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxchase—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxcub—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxdale—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxfield—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxfire—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxglove—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxhole—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxhound—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxhunt—HMS Sultan, Gosport

  Foxlane, HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxmark—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Foxtor—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Gauntlet of Plymouth—Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon

  83

  Heads I Win—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Head Over Heels—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Headstrong—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Hedonist—HMS Raleigh, Plymouth

  Janthia—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Lambis—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Mitra—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Nerita—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Olympus—HMS Sultan, Gosport

  Placunda—HMS Hornet—Gosport

  Proteus—HMS Sultan, Gosport

  Rapana—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Redcoat 2—Commander British Forces, Hong Kong

  Sane Marais 2—Royal Marines, Stonehouse, Plymouth

  Syrinx—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Trochus—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Voluta—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Zidona—HMS Hornet, Gosport

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom the report to be produced by the committee on the future of the Ministry of Defence police chaired by Mr. Blelloch will report; when it is expected to be finalised; and if it will be published.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on 15 December 1993,Official Report, columns 738–39.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what delegations from North Devon he has received or has appointments to receive to discuss the future of RAF Chivenor;

  (2) what alternative uses he has recently considered for the site of RAF Chivenor.

  Mr. Hanley
  I met the hon. Member and a number of North Devon county councillors on 17 January 1994. There are no current plans to meet any further delegations.

  RAF Chivenor will continue to house a search and rescue flight. From 1 July 1994 this will be upgraded to a 24–hour Sea King flight. In addition, the site will continue to be considered for any possible alternative defence requirement that might arise.

  Nuclear Weapons Exercises
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the United States authorities regarding the possibility of their publishing contingency planning information on exercises conducted with American nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom along the lines of information published in this area by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has made no such representations. A document issued by the MOD in December 1992 and distributed to local authorities and emergency services already gives relevant guidance on the actions to be taken in the event of any transport accident in the United Kingdom involving a nuclear weapon. A copy of this document—"Local Authority and Emergency Service Information on Nuclear Weapon Transport Contingency Plans"—is also in the Library of the House.

  Exercise Diver Mist
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arrangements have been made for the media to(a) participate in the Diver Mist nuclear weapons accident exercise and (b) report on the activities and outcome of the Diver Mist exercise;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Diver Mist nuclear weapons emergency exercise scenario.

  (3) if he will place in the Library an unclassified version of his Departmental report evaluating the Diver Mist nuclear weapons accident exercise conducted in East Anglia 18 to 22 April;

  (4) which military authorities will participate in the Diver Mist nuclear weapons accident exercise on 18 to 22 April in East Anglia;

  (5) which emergency plans will be tested during the Diver Mist nuclear accident exercise in East Anglia on 18 to 22 April;

  (6) what are the objectives of the joint United Kingdom/United States nuclear weapon accident exercise Diver Mist due to take place near Thetford on 18 to 24 April;

  (7) if he will list the observers invited to attend the Diver Mist nuclear weapons accident exercise in East Anglia on 18 to 22 April.

  Mr. Hanley
  The accident scenario for Exercise Diver Mist was based on a crash of a United States transport aircraft carrying nuclear weapons in United Kingdom airspace. The objective was to exercise the combined response of relevant United Kingdom and United States Government Departments and local authorities and civil emergency services to a nuclear weapon transport accident, and as such it offered the opportunity to test relevant United Kingdom-United States and national contingency plans, as well as the major incident plans of local authorities and emergency services. The exercise involved the participation of the MOD's nuclear accident response organisation, which includes military units and personnel with relevant capabilities from all three services. United States military forces with similar capabilities also participated. I attended the exercise to provide the parliamentary and political dimension.

  Observers from relevant central Government Departments, local authorities and emergency services, and from United States federal authorities were invited to attend the exercise. Media participation in the circumstances created by the exercise scenario was simulated by exercise players, who included reservists who are journalists by profession. In addition, a briefing attended by representatives of the local media was held on 17 April to explan the scope and purpose of the exercise.

  The post-exercise report will be a classified document.

  Nuclear Weapon Accidents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek from his United States counterpart a copy of the United States Department of Defence manual on nuclear weapon accident response procedures; and if he will place it in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will arrange for a copy of this document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the Anglo/Scottish/Welsh-American community relations committees.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The members currently appointed to the Anglo/Scottish/Welsh-American community relations committees are as follows:

  Cliff Woodhead

  Michael Behagg

  Mrs. Carol Booker

  Mrs. Kay Dunn

  Mrs. Sue Parkin

  David Parsons

  Dr. Irwin Peck

  Richard Scantlebury

  Bob Seery

  J. F. Green, OBE TD

  E. Jenkins, MBE

  D. Mayman

  L. Jones

  Sir Stanley Odell

  Mrs. Gee Bird

  Mrs. Meg Bennett

  Mrs. Cherry Jephson

  James Leaver

  Richard Parrish

  Wing Commander Chris Taylor RAF (Retd)

  The Hon Mrs. Bing

  Hon. Sherriff Willie Johnston, MBE, JP

  Dr. Ion Grove-White

  Hugh A. C. Adamson

  Mrs. Rose Rickman

  Peter Arkell

  Mrs. Linda Jones

  Mark Whittering

  David Marshall

  Eustace Crawley

  Alec Faulds

  Brendan Fulham

  Councillor Mrs. Eileen Jacob

  Councillor Mrs. Carol Lynch

  Mrs. Maya Morriss

  Bruce Rutterford

  Jack Haylock, MBE

  Nick Berry

  Sheila Bonnett

  Dr. Colin Dring

  Edward Kydd

  Canon David Merkle

  David Minns

  Ken Thompson

  John Zeal

  A. I. Rabey

  Mrs. S. J. Christopher

  86

  D. Curnow

  Captain E. T. Denholm RN (Retd)

  D. James

  Superintendent K. H. Shepperd

  Charles Parker

  Mrs. José

  Canon Hewitt Wilson

  Group Captain James Marmion RAF (Retd)

  Superintendent Alan Partridge

  The Earl of Swinton

  John A. Winter

  Mrs. Heather Manton

  Mrs. Kathleen Wood

  Mrs. Katherine Lovell

  Mr. Roger K. Linfoot

  Capital Projects (Expenditure)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the variations between current and original estimated expenditures on the capital projects at(a) Minley/Chatham barracks, (b) Dishforth, accommodation for Army Air Corps, (c) Tidworth, infrastructure and tank road, and (d) Wattisham (RAF), change of role, as listed on page 19 of Command 276–1.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 April 1994]: The reduction in estimated costs for the Minley/Chatham, Dishforth and Tidworth capital works projects is due to the refinement of the original estimates as the design has developed, coupled with lower than forecast project management fees. Also, competitive tendering has resulted in works contracts being let at significantly lower prices than was originally estimated. Indeed, estimates for all three projects have continued to fall and are now as follows:

  Minley/Chatham Barracks—£28,467,000

  Dishforth—£31,283,000

  Tidworth—£27,004,000

  In the case of the Wattisham project, the current estimated project cost is £46,150,000, which represents a reduction against the estimate shown on page 19 of Command 276–1. This still, however, represents an increase over the original project cost. That is due to the fact that financial provision for a new build of married quarters was not included in the original estimate as the requirement for domestic accommodation had not been defined at that point in time. Provision had, however, been made separately to cover overall married quarter requirements resulting from the return of forces from Germany, including the two regiments moving to Wattisham.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of Business I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to perform the opening ceremony at Hatton Cross Hearing Centre for Immigration Appeals on Friday 29th April. Accordingly, as those arrangements were made before it was known that this House would be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday 29th April

Rugby Union Football
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to rugby union football; and whether they accept that more nations are now participating in the sport.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Sports Council, which is sponsored by my department, provided £100,000 to the Rugby Football Union in 1993–94 and also awards grants to individual rugby union clubs. In addition, Sportsmatch, the Government's incentive sponsorship scheme for sport, has provided over £630,000 for grass roots rugby union schemes throughout Britain. This has been matched by a similar sum from businesses. Also, since 1991, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has provided grants totalling over £6.5 million for rugby union football projects in the United Kingdom. The Government recognise that there is an increasing number of nations now playing rugby union football.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her Answer. Does she agree that this is a game which brings people together in friendly rivalry while requiring physical fitness and sportsmanship? In view of the recent international matches between women's teams, and the triumph of the England XV, is there any government support for women's rugby? If my noble friend ever played, I am sure that she was an effective and formidable exponent who never wasted time by kicking into touch.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that your Lordships would all like to follow me in congratulating the English women who beat the United States by 38 to 23. Women's teams have to pay all their own expenses. They receive no financial help. I am told that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was a promising player in his youth. I am sorry to say that my only experience with oval balls is as a spectator.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is considerable danger at this time that this splendid game could become over-commercialised, with the result that there will be areas of the United Kingdom which will lose their best players because of that tendency? Will she say what she proposes to do to prevent that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure that this is a matter for the Government to take action over, but it is now acknowledged widely in the sporting world that, apart from schools sport and at true grass roots level, the traditional form of amateurism no longer exists.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that wherever we travel in the world we find British sport being played, although we never seem to trumpet the fact that we were responsible for giving sport to the world?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, across all five continents over 100 nations, ranging from Fiji to Canada, play rugby union football.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what concerns many of the British sports-loving and rugby-loving public is that they should be able to watch the internationals and the five nations competition on television? Does she agree that it would be regrettable were the showing of rugby internationals on television to be lost to satellite television, which is available only to that minority who can afford to pay for it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand that the BBC has secured exclusive live coverage rights for the five nations championship for the next three years (1994–97), but that BSkyB will be allowed to broadcast matches one hour after the games have ended.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am glad to hear of the help given to amateur rugby union, a game upon which I was brought up, but I lived in Leeds for 30-odd years and amateur rugby league is the game there. It is played in schools and locally in all clubs. May I hope that whatever help is given to amateur rugby union will be given to amateur rugby league?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, for 1992–93, the Sports Council provided grant aid totalling £160,000 to the British Amateur Rugby League Association and £7,500 to the English Schools Rugby League.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, what financial help do the Government intend to give to rugby league, which is a more skilled game?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that both games are absolutely wonderful.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that nine members of the English rugby union team are from public schools and that since 1979 there has been a growing trend for less rugby union to be taught in state schools? That is the case in particular in

375
the north, where there is a prevalence for teaching rugby league. Will the Minister say what incentives are given to state schools to play more rugby union?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Sports Council's grant aid to the RFU, which was £100,000 in 1993–94, is specifically targeted at assisting its comprehensive programme for the development of the game at youth level.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the great help and assistance which the clubs are beginning to give to schools as regards rugby union is a model which we should take on board and develop for all sports in schools that are unable or unwilling to take on the tuition?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the distribution of RFU income is a matter for that body. However, I understand that it provides more than £1.5 million for its comprehensive youth and schools rugby coaching and development programme.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, following the rapid progress of women in rugger, is mixed rugger encouraged in schools?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are no formal mixed rugby teams. However, the RFU's marvellous new image, touch rugby scheme, which is aimed at increasing youngsters' tactical and passing skills, enables boys and girls to play together so long as there is no bodily contact.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with Australia, New Zealand and other distant countries excelling in this game, is there any other sport —apart from athletics —which draws such large crowds and television audiences and is played by amateurs and not professionals?
Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I believe that my noble friend is right.

Occupied Territories: Peace Progress
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be occupied territories.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, yes. We fully support the Israel/PLO Declaration of Principles, which has as its aim the implementation of Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338. These resolutions call for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the encouraging Answer as regards the maintenance of the Government's policy. Does she agree that, despite the activities of extremists on both sides, the Prime Minister of Israel and his Foreign
376
Secretary and Mr. Yasser Arafat and the PLO executive are making advances towards a real peace? Will Britain's considered support for the PLO and the Israeli Government continue? Will the Minister make our voice heard at the United Nations in pursuing our Government's policy to help bring peace to that area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that, as regards the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, agreement will be concluded as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will know that Mr. Arafat and Shimon Peres met last week in Bucharest and that discussions went well. There are welcome Israeli indications that withdrawal can be completed quickly. If requested, Britain is ready to play its part in an international presence in the occupied territories. We will continue to make our voice heard at the UN and in all other fora in efforts to bring peace to that troubled land.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Israeli defence forces are in the occupied territories for the legitimate purpose of defending Israel's frontiers and that the forces will be withdrawn when the peace negotiations are concluded?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sincerely hope that that will be so. We are glad too that negotiations between Israel and Syria, Lebanon and Jordan are expected soon to resume in Washington. That might make it possible for those forces to withdraw from the borders all the sooner.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as regards Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, what representations have been made to Mr. Warren Christopher, the US Secretary of State, who is about to visit the Middle East? Does the Minister agree that, in the light of Mr. Rabin's remarks about the matter last week and in the interests of peace in the long term, now would be an appropriate time to put some pressure on the Israeli Government to remove these settlements?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we welcome very much the statement of Prime Minister Rabin, which was made on 13th April, that for peace and security his government are prepared to take down some settlements. The Israeli Government have curbed settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza, which is welcome although it falls short of a total ban. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has talked to Mr. Christopher. I have no doubt that our view, which has been clearly expressed in your Lordships' House, has been part of that discussion.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the word "pressure" is singularly ill-chosen at a moment of very delicate negotiation? The important thing is encouragement and not pressure.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I will always be the first to encourage progress. I believe that progress is being made and that the Israeli Government are seeking to make progress. But I believe, as my noble

377
friend said, that all the encouragement that your Lordships' House can give them to make progress will be very welcome and better than pressure.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if the Israelis were to withdraw from Gaza and Jericho, as they have promised, that would give a major boost to the whole peace process and provide support to the moderates on both sides? In her encouraging replies, if I understood her correctly, the noble Baroness referred to the offer to send British troops as peacekeepers to the West Bank. Is that what she meant? If so, are other countries making the same offer?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may say in response to the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the words I used—I wrote them down most carefully before coming to the Chamber —were that Britain is ready to play its part in an international presence in the occupied territories, if requested. We have indeed offered to play our part with observers. But the present arrangement is that 90 Norwegians, 35 Danes and 35 Italians will be carrying out the role of international observers. We hope very much that the steps taken by Israel and the PLO will, as I say, be followed through in other negotiations which should commence in about mid-May.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that under the Declaration of Principles, signed by the PLO and the Israelis, it was agreed that the question of the Israeli settlements should he deliberately deferred until the permanent negotiations, which are to take place in approximately two years' time? Therefore, would it not be much more sensible for Her Majesty's Government not to be precipitate in the language used?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we try very hard to use both consistent language and language which will encourage the progress to which I referred as having been made by the Israeli Government in curbing settlement activity. But we are aware that there are enormous tensions in the area. Therefore, further encouragement is needed. I put that as tactfully as I can, but I must say to my noble friend that there is a long way to go before all the obstacles to peace have been removed.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, will the Minister join with me in welcoming the slightly more open-minded attitude of my noble friend Lord Molloy? Does she agree that while people may have taken a long-term interest in this problem, it is extremely important that nothing is said outside the area which might in any way prejudice negotiations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I always welcome open minds wherever I can find them. I encourage people to be open minded. However, I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said because I believe that the discussions have reached an extremely sensitive point. We can only hope that everyone will be as thoughtful about the matter as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, is trying to be.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we must bear in mind that there has been occupation of those territories for 27 years and that youths aged between 20 and 27 might become rather impatient. Will the noble Baroness consider also another aspect; namely, that Arab Christians in those territories have to obtain a special permit to visit Jerusalem? Will those permits be more forthcoming in future? Will there be any relaxation of the attitude towards Christians in that part of the world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we recognise well the sensitivities of those who wish to visit Jerusalem, whatever their age. We know that those wishing to visit sometimes find it almost impossible to do so. I hope that that will soon become much easier. We should aim for religious freedom within the overall peace settlement for this troubled part of the world.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would not be wise to be precipitate in offering to send our own troops to Israel and to the West Bank? Very unfairly, we incurred much odium from both sides during the termination of the mandate. However unfair that may have been, many of us might think it unwise to expose our forces to the difficult situation that would arise there were they sent.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I very much sympathise with the words of the noble Lord. I believe that we can give much encouragement. We have already many peacekeeping tasks in different parts of the world which we are carrying out. I hope that our encouragement means that others will contribute towards peacekeeping in greater numbers than they are doing at present.

Life Sentence Prisoners
2.55 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many convicted criminals sentenced by the courts to imprisonment for life were released during the past year and how many ended their lives as prisoners.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the provisional figure for 1993 for the number of life sentence prisoners who were first released on life licence is 118. During 1993, seven life sentence prisoners died in prison.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does that Answer not indicate that a sentence of life imprisonment is now virtually meaningless and that the deterrent effect of what is still the sentence for the most serious offences has been gravely undermined? Have the Government any proposals in mind to remedy that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe at all that it means that the sentence is meaningless. A person who is sentenced has a life sentence. Part of that time is spent in custody; part of it is spent on licence when he is released. Each case must be considered on its merits. When one thinks that there are 3,148 life sentence

379
prisoners detained in prison in England and Wales at present, I do not believe that that figure is necessarily unreasonable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the Minister said in his supplementary answer, but does he not accept that the idea of people ending their natural lives in prison is not only degrading for us but also damaging to prison morale?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that that necessarily follows. A person has to end his life somewhere, and if such a person finds himself in prison, it may be that he ends his life there. The whole principle of the criminal justice system at present is that a person is given a life sentence: he may spend the whole of his life in prison but on many occasions he is allowed out on licence for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded the House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that on 24th January he was good enough to give me a Written Answer which indicated that through the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 a total of 13 people were killed by killers who had been released from prison? Can he say how many of those killers who were released and killed again had been the subject of life sentences?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, not without notice.

Appeals against Conviction
2.57 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept that in a majority of cases in the last three years when the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has quashed convictions the court concluded either that evidence was unsafe or that relevant evidence had not been disclosed to the defence; and what procedures have been instituted to monitor and reduce the number of such cases.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice found that the most common grounds upon which appeals against conviction are allowed are errors at trial.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Is he aware that a few weeks ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote to me to say that he did not know what the common cause was; that it would take three civil-servant months to find out; and that he was not prepared to spend the money to find out what it was? Does the noble Earl not agree with me that, in view of the fact that there were 400 cases last year, 300 cases the year before and an estimated 500 to 600 cases this year in which there was some form of evidence abuse, something needs to be done about the problem?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was set up. It took into account all those problems. It carried out research into them. The results of that research are as I
380
have suggested to the House. I am not privy to the letters which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor writes to the noble Lord, but I have every reason to believe that the contents of his letters are precise and accurate.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the situation in Bosnia.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is a major and important piece of legislation. It is also a fairly formidable document. It runs to 152 clauses and 11 schedules and covers a variety of different subjects. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not propose to summarise all its provisions. I shall contain myself, and refer to some of the main themes.
One starts from the premise that crime is bad; it is an offence to society, and it ruins people's lives. But it is created by people—and people are responsible for what they do. No one has to carry out crime. No one has to ruin the lives of others—and, if people do, the responsibility for doing so is theirs, and theirs alone. Protecting the public is an essential responsibility of government. The Government are determined to deal with those who create crime and to protect the ordinary citizen.
Some of what we propose is controversial. I make no apology for that fact; it is inevitable when one alters the state of the law. In the Bill we are responding to concerns widely felt throughout the country. These, put simply, are that the balance of justice needs to be tilted slightly more in favour of the offended and slightly less in favour of the offender. It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that the Bill has been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of another place. It received overwhelming approval, with a majority of no less than 176 at Third Reading—and no guillotine.
Some of the proposals were announced in Her Majesty's gracious Speech; some respond to recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which sat under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman; and some were added in another place. The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation have enthusiastically welcomed the Bill. The Police Federation has said that the Bill will enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime; will help to bring criminals to justice; will reduce the fear of crime; and will thereby improve the quality of life for many people in society.
The Bill begins with the problem of juvenile crime and in particular with the problem caused by persistent

381
young offenders. It is a fact—a fact frequently drawn to my attention when I visit police forces throughout the country —that a large number of crimes are in many cases committed by a very small number of offenders, many of whom are juveniles. There are reports of a 14 year-old from Tyneside who has 28 convictions and who has escaped 22 times from local authority accommodation. Another 14 year-old boy in south London has admitted taking part in more than 1,000 burglaries of shops and homes in the past two years. On a single night he, and other teenagers, raided 23 branches of one particular store. He has stolen over 100 cars to ferry himself between burglaries, and the total value of all the goods stolen and the cost of damage caused is estimated to be in the region of £2 million. He has been arrested 40 times but is too young to be given a custodial sentence for the crimes he has committed. That is pretty hot stuff.
These are examples of youngsters who have committed dozens of offences, and who have had cautions, discharges, supervision orders and local authority care; in fact, the lot. Yet they are still out there putting people's lives at risk and making people's lives a misery. I suggest that Parliament has a right, and, indeed, a duty, to protect the public from persistent offenders.
Cautioning has worked well with many juveniles. It is frequently an adequate response to keep the majority of juveniles out of further trouble. Community penalties also have a crucial role to play in tackling offending behaviour by young people. But despite the success of many of those methods of dealing with young offenders, they have not always worked on all people. There is considerable public concern about a small minority of youngsters. I share that concern. This small hard core of young juveniles commit crime after crime; they cock a snook at the law, at the courts and at society; they commit a disproportionate number of crimes, often including burglary and the theft of vehicles; and they wreck the community for everyone else and destroy the lives of other youngsters by leading them into criminal ways. Moreover, too often, they get away with it—sometimes laughing at the courts, the victims and the police in the process. Parliament cannot disregard that.
No one likes putting youngsters in secure premises. Of course not. But where they have been offered the opportunity to respond to other measures, including supervision orders—and have rejected them—and when they continue to offend against the community and to ruin the lives of others, it is in everyone's interests that they should be removed for a while. At least efforts can then be made to get the youngster back on to the right track, and at least the rest of society can be given a respite from the persistent plundering of the wayward youth.
The powers of the courts to order the detention of juveniles are at present very limited. Detention in a young offender institution is available only for youngsters over 15 years of age. But there is a significant gap which needs to be filled in order to deal with young people who now so often do the offending. The Bill therefore gives the courts a new power to make a secure training order for 12, 13 and 14 year-olds who
382
persistently offend. But strict criteria will have to be met before an order can be made. The offence before the court must be sufficiently serious to be able to attract a custodial sentence. In every case, the young offender will have been convicted of three imprisonable offences and, in every case, he will have to have breached a previous supervision order. It is not the intention that custody should be the immediate response to offending behaviour.
The young offender who is sent to a secure training centre will almost certainly have been cautioned, and will have failed to respond to it. He will also have had a community sentence, and will have failed to respond to that. The secure training centres will be for young offenders who have failed, not once but consistently, to respond to other forms of remedial help. The secure training order will have a minimum length of six months and a maximum length of two years. Half of the time will be spent in a secure training centre; the other half will consist of supervision in the community.
The Government's view is that the necessary provision for this purpose should be made by central government—either directly, or, as we propose, through the involvement of the private sector. We considered the alternative of expanding the stock of local authority accommodation, a proposal which, I know, attracts some people. But most local authority units are relatively small—often only eight to 16 places. The regime and activities available in those circumstances are, therefore, necessarily limited. In contrast, the secure training centres will be larger regional units with about 40 youngsters in each. That kind of size will allow a much broader range of facilities and programmes to be developed so that an individual training plan can be drawn up for each youngster. That will be an important part of the secure training order sentence. When the young offenders come to leave their secure training centres, we intend that they should have benefited and learnt from their time there. At the very least, their detention in the secure training centres will have given their local communities some respite from their unacceptable and intolerable behaviour.
The Bill makes two other important changes in the sentencing of juveniles. It raises the maximum sentence of detention in a young offender institution for 15, 16 and 17 year-olds to two years, and it widens the range of serious offences for which long terms of detention will be available. The Bill also extends to 12, 13 and 14 year-olds the existing powers of the courts to order secure remands for 15 and 16 year-olds. The proposals in the Bill on juvenile offenders represent a considerable strengthening of the courts' powers. They enable the courts to be better able to deal with the small hard core of young criminals.
The Bill also addresses public concerns about the use of bail. There are too many cases in which people who are accused of a serious offence offend again—sometimes repeatedly—immediately after being released on bail. It has been estimated that some 50,000 offences are committed each year by people who are on bail. This means 50,000 unnecessary crimes, with all the grief and personal misery which they bring, committed

383
each year by people who are already charged with having committed another offence. That is something we can tackle. And it is something we should tackle.
There is at present a presumption in favour of bail, even for those who have been accused of offending while on bail. The Bill will change that. It will also allow the police to grant bail with conditions, as the Royal Commission recommended, thereby avoiding the need for a person to be brought before a court for the purpose.
The Bill changes too the law concerning what is usually called the "right of silence". It introduces, for England and Wales, provisions modelled on those which have been in place in Northern Ireland since 1988. In doing this we are implementing the recommendations made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee way back in 1972. Despite the eminence of that committee's membership, the report was controversial for many years. But in Northern Ireland it has worked well and without difficulty for the past five years. Our proposals have the unequivocal support of all the police associations, and a majority of the judges who gave evidence to the Royal Commission indicated that they would favour a change.
The Bill would allow a court or a jury, in carefully defined circumstances, to draw such inference as they think fit from the failure of a suspect to answer police questions, or from his failure to give evidence in court. This is an important change. At present, the trial judge has to warn the jury not to assume that because a person has refused to answer questions, or because he has refused to give evidence, that implies he is guilty. An amendment was made to Clause 33 in another place which effected a minor change of procedure. The Bill will also change the Northern Ireland order in this respect. The Bill does not, though, compel anyone to answer questions or to give evidence.
There is also no question of convicting anyone on the basis of silence alone. The effect of the proposals in the Bill is simply that those who remain silent would no longer be specially protected—as they are at present—from any inferences which common sense may suggest might be drawn from that silence. The present rules are too easily exploited by experienced offenders—including terrorists —to their own advantage. That is something which most people would deplore.
The Bill also gives the police a number of new powers designed to help them to meet the complexities of modern-day policing. The police will be allowed to take and store DNA samples in connection with a much wider range of offences than they can at present. In time a national database will be built up which should be a great asset in the investigation of crime. The Bill broadly follows the Royal Commission's recommendations on the matter.
The police will also be given new "stop and search" powers which are aimed against terrorism. They are expressed in the Bill as additions to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and will therefore be subject to annual scrutiny and to annual renewal by Parliament.
384
A new clause, inserted into the Bill in another place, gives the police new powers to search for offensive weapons when the police anticipate that violence may occur. This is now Clause 55. The present powers of the police can only be exercised when a constable has a "reasonable suspicion" that a particular individual is carrying an offensive weapon or another prohibited article. This, of course, is the right test for ordinary circumstances but it does seriously inhibit effective preventive action being taken by the police when they believe that violence is likely to break out, for example between groups of people. That is why we think a wider power is needed for this sort of occasion—and another place agreed. What is at stake here is the lives of members of the public and of police officers.
The Bill imposes strict limitations on the use of the new power. It can only be used when a senior officer has reason to believe that incidents involving serious violence may take place, and it can then only be used in a limited area and for a limited length of time—up to 24 hours.
The Bill also gives the police and local authorities new powers, and creates new offences, to tackle the destruction and distress which are caused mainly to rural communities by trespassers. The damage caused with impunity at Castlemorton in 1992 demonstrated only too clearly a serious problem which had to be addressed. The Bill therefore strengthens the provisions of Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986, which gives the police powers to act against trespassers who take up residence on land and where, either because of the sheer weight of numbers involved or because of their behaviour, it is right that the criminal law should be invoked.
Section 39 will be extended to apply in a wider range of circumstances—principally by extending it to minor highways—and by reducing from 12 to six the number of vehicles which are required before the provisions of Section 39 can be used. The police will also be given new powers to seize and to remove vehicles if trespassers refuse to comply with a direction to leave land.
The police will have new powers to deal with unlicensed night-time parties, which, in the general jargon of the day, are described as "raves". These have caused appalling misery to local residents where the peaceful lives of rural societies have suddenly been ripped apart by the all-pervasive sound of what is sometimes delicately described as "music", the noise of which travels for miles, affecting everyone in its path —both man and beast—and from which it is impossible to escape. It can be a modern-day torture for the unwilling and the unwitting.
The new powers will enable the police to prevent a build-up of large numbers of people on land where the police reasonably believe that a rave will take place which will result in the local community suffering serious distress on account of amplified music played during the night. The police will also be given powers to seize amplification equipment so as to stop an illegal rave which is already in progress.
The Bill includes measures to tackle the disturbance which can be caused by large gatherings of trespassers.

385
As with raves, we wish to enable the police to prevent a potentially disruptive assembly rather than leave them to tackle it once it has gathered. The Bill therefore provides a power to prohibit large gatherings of trespassers in the open air which are likely to cause serious disruption to the life of the community or which are likely to result in significant damage to sites of special importance.
The Bill provides new police powers to deal with those who seek to disrupt the lawful activities of others. This is becoming a particularly serious problem, often leading to violence. Those who dislike the activities of other people have a perfect right to campaign against them. But they do not have the right to trespass, to threaten or to intimidate. The Bill introduces a criminal offence of aggravated trespass, and it will give the police powers to direct trespassers to leave land if they have reason to believe that the trespassers will seek to disrupt or to prevent a lawful activity.
Part V of the Bill contains measures for local authorities to tackle illegal camping. There will be a new power for all local authorities to direct unauthorised campers to leave land. If the campers do not leave, magistrates' courts will be able to authorise local authorities to take the necessary steps to remove the campers, their vehicles and their belongings. A nomadic way of life is a way of life which people have every right to choose, but it is necessary to recognise the considerable distress which unauthorised camping can bring to local communities.
Part VII of the Bill seeks to strengthen the controls against pornography. It provides, for the first time, a power of immediate arrest of those who are suspected of trading in obscene material and in child pornography, and it increases the present powers of search and seizure. The possession of child pornography will, for the first time, attract a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment. The Bill will also ensure that the law catches those who create indecent images of children through the use of computers.
Great concern was expressed in another place about the effect which violent videos can have upon children and the relative ease with which they are available to children. An amendment was considered which the Government were unable to accept because its effect would have been to ban the supply, even to adults, of all videos which are unsuitable for viewing by children. The Bill already contained important measures to assist in the enforcement of the current legislation. But the Government also share the concerns underlying the amendment moved in another place and we propose to take further action to improve the control and the regulation of such material. We intend to bring amendments before your Lordships to deal with the issue.
The Bill widens and improves the powers to contract-out the provision of prisons, prisoner escorts and some prison services in England and Wales, and it allows, for the first time, the contracting-out of prisons and prisoner escorting in Scotland and of prisoner escorting in Northern Ireland.
The Bill also gives to organisations which represent prison officers and prison governors the status in law of
386
trade unions. It gives to the staff concerned the same employment rights as have other Crown servants and it provides for the establishment of new pay determination procedures. However, the Bill also puts beyond doubt that it is unlawful to incite prison officers to withhold their services or to commit a breach of discipline.
Part XI of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous but important provisions. Prison officers and staff are given new powers to search for drugs and weapons. Penalties are raised for the possession of Class B and C drugs. Those have not been raised since 1977 and have become out of kilter with the fines for other offences. The police are given the power of immediate arrest of those who publish or distribute racially inflammatory material; and we hope to bring forward an amendment to give tougher penalties for persistent harassment.
The Bill also contains provisions which were added to the Bill following free votes in another place. The use of human embryos or foetuses for the purpose of providing fertility services is made an offence; and the minimum age for homosexual acts is lowered from 21 to 18.
The measures which the Bill contains cover a wide spectrum of our national life. We want to see the police properly equipped to tackle crime. We want the courts to have sufficient and appropriate powers. We want to see crime reduced. We want to see the criminal properly dealt with, and we want to see the life of the ordinary person better protected from the anxiety and the misery which are so often caused by crime. This Bill will help to achieve those objectives, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful as always to the Minister for his lucid explanation of as many of the provisions of the Bill as he could reasonably be expected to refer to. We forgive him for his omissions because it is clear that it would not be possible to refer to the wide range of subjects covered by the Bill. I hope to follow his example.
We object to the Bill for two reasons: that it is what it is; and that it is not what it is not. Let me deal first with why we object to it on the ground that it is not what it is not. What we had expected from a criminal justice Bill and what was urgently required from the Government was a legislative response to the Royal Commission report. In a debate in October of last year the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, made a remarkable maiden speech. Virtually all who took part in the debate agreed, first, that it was necessary for the Government urgently to take action to deal with the problem of miscarriages of justice which had given rise to the setting up of the Royal Commission in the first place. Secondly, virtually everyone agreed that it had to be done in a coherent and comprehensive way rather than by picking out bits and pieces of the Royal Commission report —I believe the current jargon for that is "cherry picking"; I do not know what that means—and choosing the bits that the Government like without

387
recognising the necessity for a coherent approach. Unfortunately the Government have picked out bits of the Royal Commission report. They have done worse than seek to enact them. In the case of the right to silence they seek to go against the Royal Commission's firm recommendation. Yet there is no reference in the Bill to the fundamental recommendation of the Royal Commission that in criminal cases there should be a review authority.
My thoughts about the criminal cases review authority have been considerably changed by the discussion document which the Home Office issued this month. In a non-partisan spirit, I wish to congratulate and thank the Government for the issue of that discussion document. In many cases it supports the view of the Royal Commission. In many other cases in which it is unable to support those views without further consultation, the document appears to be couched in the frame of a genuine discussion document. On the basis that it appears to be the Government's firm intention to introduce legislation—I hope that that means in the next Session, although I understand the limitation on the Government's ability to say so—and on the basis of the open-mindedness and fairness of the discussion document, I believe that we shall be able to support legislation when it arises. I believe that one of the fundamental criticisms of the Bill has thereby been postponed. I hope that I am not being naive. I hope that I do not expect too much. I seems to me that there has been a genuine response in that respect to the report of the Royal Commission.
I turn now to why we object to the Bill being what it is rather than what it is not. It is, in the jargon phrase, a Christmas tree. I believe that I understand that: everyone can add what they want to the Bill, and indeed many people have already done so. I fear that your Lordships will not be immune from that failing.
The Bill is not a coherent approach to the problem of crime, despite what the Minister said in moving the Second Reading. We have a ragbag of promises which were made to the Conservative Party Conference last year, a rejection of previously hard-acquired wisdom and understanding about how to deal with crime, a preference for punishment rather than for effective reform, and a wide mixture of misunderstandings of the nature of crime and of the causes of crime. In our view those have to be considered together if the very real problem of crime is to be tackled.
Let me take, first, the issue of young offenders referred to in Part I of the Bill. I commend the Government's 1990 White Paper which states:
"For most offenders, imprisonment has to be justified in terms of public protection, denunciation and retribution. Otherwise it can be an expensive way of making bad people worse".
That is a far cry from the claim of the Home Secretary last year that prison works. Prison works only in the most limited conceivable way: that while someone is in prison he is not capable of committing a crime outside prison. But that is no justification either for the existence of prison or for the extension of prison, which appears to be the Government's intention.
388
That argument applies to all prisoners, but it applies with even greater force to young offenders. In a report published in February of this year, the Policy Studies Institute described young offenders in a way which your Lordships will recognise as being fair: that young offenders tend to have chaotic, disturbed, traumatised lives; that it is highly likely that they have been abused at some stage during their childhood; and that it is highly likely that they have been excluded from school. Yet on the basis of a very small number—I must emphasise the point —of chaotic, disturbed and traumatised children, the Government propose a totally new form of institution.
What is the evidence that there is a problem? How many children aged 10 to 14 actually come to court each year? The figure across the whole country is 2,800. What is the evidence about the recidivism of those who come to court and are confined? I rely on a Written Answer given by the Minister as recently as 27th March of this year. Of the 2,750 15 to 16 year-olds who were placed in custody, 83 per cent. were reconvicted. It is not a large problem. It is not an increasing problem. Juvenile crime has been decreasing during the 1980s, not increasing. Imprisonment, custodial sentences and increased custodial sentences are not the answer to the problem.
Indeed, the example which Ministers like to give of their secure training centres comes from the Lisnevin Centre in Northern Ireland. That centre has an 85 per cent. reconviction rate, quite apart from the horrors of the costs. We are talking about £30 million of capital expenditure and £30 million of running costs per year. That is £150,000 per child per annum in the secure training centres. It is not as though there was not an answer to the problem. Local authority provision at the moment is 290 places per year and it is already planned that there could be an increase of a further 175. There is no reason why those numbers should not be increased considerably, if there is shown to be a demand.
The great advantage of local authority centres and smaller centres is that they would be much more local and there would not be the same separation from contact with the family, which is the only realistic hope of child offenders getting better. I was most unimpressed by the Minister's argument that local authorities with eight to 16 places were too small compared with the 40 proposed. In practice, I suggest that the centres with 40 are likely to provide a wider range of criminal experience to be passed on to those who are sent to the centres.
Part II deals with bail and I have to pass over it fairly rapidly. The Minister rightly said that the Bail Act 1976 includes a presumption against custody; quite rightly so. Only 40 per cent. of those who are on bail in the end receive custodial sentences, so that a majority of those on bail have their only experience of prison as remand prisoners. They are crowding the prison system, to no conceivable effect or value. If they are on bail and do not receive custodial sentences, then the judgment of the court has been that the public does not need to be protected from them. How many cases are there where those who have been previously convicted of murder, manslaughter and rape obtain bail? Surely, this is not a

389
case for an automatic denial of bail; it should be a judicial decision rather than a decision made here and now in all cases by Parliament.
I turn to Part III and the right to silence. I ask the question which I asked at the beginning: why is it that this issue above all should be picked out from the matters considered by the Royal Commission? Why, when it has been picked out, should the considered advice, after much research and cogitation of the Royal Commission, be overturned in Part III?
The questions that we must ask ourselves about the right to silence are: does it offend against the presumption of innocence which is the basis of our law? Does it offend against the prohibition on self-incrimination? Does it offend against the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we have subscribed and which recognises those rights?
We have to ask ourselves whether such a right is likely to run the risk of convicting more of the innocent. Are the safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 adequate? If we consider the fact that only 31 per cent. of those accused ask for solicitors, only 25 per cent. actually see a solicitor and only 13 per cent. have legal advisers present when they are questioned in a police station, we must at least allow the possibility that PACE procedures have a good way to go before they are perfected. Finally, we must ask ourselves whether such a right is likely to convict more of the guilty.
All the evidence that has been produced to the Royal Commission and elsewhere is that the right to silence is much more important to those who are weak, vulnerable, perhaps mentally vulnerable; and it is more likely to be necessary for it to be available to them than it is to hardened criminals who may use it in an attempt to defeat the procedures of the law. Again, we must ask how many are concerned: 4 per cent. of those who are accused actually exercise the right to silence. Of that 4 per cent., a large proportion either plead guilty or are found guilty, leaving 1 per cent. or at most 2 per cent. of those who exercise the right to silence who are then found to be not guilty—that is on the assumption that they are wrongly found to be not guilty, which is not an assumption that I would wish to make.
We believe that the provisions here are wholly wrong. They are retrograde, they take away from the fundamental assumptions behind our criminal law which are necessary for justice and fair trials. We will wish to oppose them radically. There are particular ways in which I am sure amendments will be brought forward which may be considered fall-back amendments. I think that they are likely to achieve widespread support in your Lordships' House. It seems absurd that the right to silence should at any time include questioning outside the police station—perhaps on the scenic route to the police station in the back of the police car. It seems absurd that the right to silence should be abolished before information has been given to the accused on the right to legal advice and before an opportunity has been given to see a solicitor. It seems absurd that there should be no protection for the mentally vulnerable, no provision for the appropriate adult procedure which exists for the mentally vulnerable. When we consider those who have been wrongly convicted—Judith Ward,
390
Enghin Raghip and Stefan Kiszko—over and over again they are the mentally and physically vulnerable rather than hardened criminals.
Under those circumstances there will be strong opposition to this part of the Bill and I believe that particular elements of what the Government propose will find widespread opposition in the House.
I do not have time to deal with the question of intimate samples, although clearly it is right for the Government to seek powers to keep pace with scientific advance.
The other major issue with which I wish to deal is collective trespass or nuisance on land. There are two issues: first, the issue of legislation and in order to simplify it, we can call it the hunt saboteur legislation. It is extraordinary that the provisions are very thorough in dealing with the nuisance of a hunt saboteur but because it is not an offence to trespass inadvertently and then cause distress, there is no protection against the disruption which may be caused by the hunt itself. That seems to me at any rate—it is not a matter on which my party will wish to impose a Whip—to be a particularly one-sided piece of legislation.
On a much more important issue, there is the whole question of caravan sites. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 provided that local authorities could have the power to move campers on, provided they had taken the necessary steps to provide legal sites for gypsies. Why should the sites not also be for Irish travellers or New Age travellers? Only 38 per cent. of local authorities have been able to find such sites, but where they have done so—and I acknowledge the difficulties of finding legal sites—it has proved to be a boon and a successful piece of legislation. I suggest to the House that the way to proceed is not to abolish the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act, but instead to move on to strengthen those provisions and make sure that local authorities have the power to move campers on, but only if they take responsibility themselves for providing for nomadic people. There are not only legal reasons for that but also social reasons because they are people whose children need to be educated, they need to have access to social services, they do not need to be dragged into a static society but they should not be denied the opportunities which a static society can provide.
I must move on. It is clearly right for the child pornography laws to be updated to cover computer pictures. We shall look carefully at the amendments proposed to the Video Recordings Act and ascertain whether they overcome the difficulties which the Home Secretary originally anticipated in opposing the Alton amendments in another place.
I can pass over the embryology question fairly quickly. My noble friend Lord Haskel will deal with that later in the debate.
I want to say a word about Clause 137 on racial harassment. We support new Clause 13 moved by Mr. Alun Michael and new Clause 127 moved by Sir Ivan Lawrence. Yes, of course it is right that Section 19 of the Public Order Act should be extended. As we understand from the British Crime Survey, it is a fact that there have been 130,000 racially motivated incidents in the course of a year. Clearly something must be done to put a stop

391
to that. We need a new arrestable offence of harassment. We look forward to the government amendments that have been proposed. We should like the Government and the House to consider whether the augmented penalties which are used as a deterrent in 40 of the 50 United States would be appropriate for use here.
In paragraph 34 of Schedule 9, an abolition of the requirement for pre-sentence reports has been sneaked in. Pre-sentence reports have been in operation for only 18 months. They appear to have worked in the sense that they have reduced unnecessary custodial sentences. Prison sentences cost more than £25,000 a month; whereas probation orders and community service orders cost less than £100 a month. We suggest to the Government that it is wrong to abandon the question of pre-sentence reports in this cavalier way at the fag-end of a very long and complicated Bill.
I shall not refer in detail to the question of the age of homosexual consent. That matter will be subject to a free vote among my colleagues here, as it was in another place. I express my own support for the wise reduction, and indeed extension, in the age of consent put forward by another place. I support the proposals which will be described by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
Finally, if we judge the Bill by the Government's own standards, we must conclude that it is a failure. This Bill does not tackle the most important issue of crime prevention in this country. It does not provide a statutory basis for collaboration between police and local authorities on crime prevention. It does not provide the increased resources and encouragement for local authority secure accommodation for juveniles to which I have already referred. It does not rationalise and extend the cautioning procedures, which have been successful. It restricts bail rather than providing for bail support and enforcement. It makes certain provisions in respect of drugs, but does not make funded provision for drug education. It does not deal with the problem of dangerous weapons being sent by mail order. It does not deal with many of the issues relating to the judiciary to which I simply do not have time to refer.
As has rightly been said, this is a complex Bill. The way in which the Government have put it forward is a grave disappointment. It is not the Bill about crime that it should be. As it proceeds through this House, we shall do our best to improve it in every way that we can.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his courteous and clear exposition of the Bill. Unfortunately, the clearer it was, the more apparent it became how objectionable some of the provisions were.
The Secretary of State has made two major speeches on this Bill. His first major speech was made before the Conservative Party Conference last year; his second was when he introduced the Bill at Second Reading in another place. I must say, having read those two speeches, that despite them we are dealing with a serious matter and one that is of grave concern to the
392
community as a whole. It is appropriate that this House should consider the contents of the Bill calmly, rationally and in a spirit that is very far removed from crude party politics. It should be considered also in a spirit that does not give undue or exaggerated weight to the opinions of the legal profession; it is a matter that concerns every single Member of this House.
Of course I cannot seek to cover the Bill as a whole. I do not seek to do so. I should like to comment on only two parts of it. The first is the part about young offenders, about which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already spoken. It is obviously a very serious matter and one that concerns us all. Yet at the same time it is not a matter that we should seek to exaggerate. Criminal statistics are, and are very liable to be, misleading. But the statistic that between 1980 and 1990 the number of juvenile offences declined by some 37 per cent. is a matter that cannot be explained as a mere statistical aberration. There still remains a serious problem in relation to juvenile crime. The noble Earl was right to draw attention to some of the individual instances of it when he moved the Bill a short while ago.
The causes of juvenile crime are complex and have been the subject of much rather indecisive research. However, I suspect that most of us would agree that the principal causes are not touched upon in any way in this Bill. I refer to the problems of broken homes; lack of parental control; the breakdown in school discipline; the decline in the influence of the Church; and the exposure of youngsters to gratuitous violence in the media and on videos. None of those matters was mentioned by the Government at any stage throughout this Bill until my colleague, Mr. Alton, ventured to press the matter in another place. As a result of his action we are later to hear about that aspect. There is the whole problem of the alienation from society of the younger generation—largely because they are brought up in conditions of semi-poverty and perhaps sometimes of semi-squalor; and very often with their father standing in a dole queue. Those are the real problems that we want to tackle if we are seriously to deal with the question of juvenile delinquency.
Instead, we are given as the answer in this Bill the idea of more custody. Let us in effect lock up as many young people as we can for as long a period as we can get away with. What a disastrous solution that is to propose! It flies in the face of the whole of our experience over the past 10 or 20 years. Time after time methods of keeping youngsters in custody have been proposed. There have been borstals, approved schools, detention centres; there was talk of the short, sharp shock. There were all those and many other variations on the same theme. Without exception they all gave rise to the result that within two years of release somewhere between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the youngsters who were placed in custody in that way re-offended. I venture to think that the Government were right in their Green Paper in 1988 when they said that even a short period of custody is quite likely to confirm children as criminals—particularly if they acquire new criminal skills from more sophisticated offenders.
If putting youngsters into custody has failed in the past, why should it succeed now? I hope that the noble

393
and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, when he comes to reply to the debate, will remind us of the research that shows that the methods that are now proposed by the Government are likely to succeed, whereas over the past 10, 20 or 30 years similar methods have totally failed.
I have one other comment about the position of young offenders. It is suggested in Clauses 16 to 18 that perhaps some of them should be locked up for longer and longer periods. The Home Secretary appears to have discovered that if people are locked up, they cannot commit offences. I suppose that that is true, and will be true even when the prisons come to be entirely privatised. If people are locked up, they cannot commit further offences. It is neither a profound nor a constructive viewpoint. It leads logically to the view that if all prisoners were locked up for the whole of their lives, there would be no crime. It is not a very helpful suggestion to make. As for doubling the maximum sentences, as proposed in the Bill, the fact is that it is very rare for existing maximum sentences to be applied to juvenile offenders. Doubling them is very little more than an empty gesture.
I do not pretend that there is any easy solution to the problems of juvenile crime. I believe that we have to work to reduce the causes of juvenile crime slowly, steadily and consistently over the years. We should recognise, as the Government at present do not seem to recognise, that most delinquent juveniles grow up and grow out of their criminal ways, whether or not they have been sent in to custody during that time.
I believe that we have to devote our main efforts to working in the community and recovering those children for the community. I do not mean to say that we may not have to contemplate custody in some cases. But I believe that custody for juveniles should be contemplated with reluctance as a last resort and not, as I suspect that this Government are doing, with enthusiasm as a first choice.
My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie will make his maiden speech on these issues, which I await with great interest. My noble friend Lord Henniker, too, has had much experience of dealing with juvenile offenders.
The other matter in this Bill that I propose to deal with is the right of silence. I know that it is a misnomer to talk about the Bill abolishing the right of silence, but we all know what it means when we say that. I do not think that there is a convenient phrase for getting round it. There are only two general observations that I want to make on the right of silence because my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who for many years was the doyen of the English Criminal Bar, will speak principally on that issue.
The first observation is that a criminal trial is by its nature an artificial process. It consists of the haphazard development over the years of what amounts to a whole series of checks and balances. If one alters one particular check or balance, it is impossible to say what the overall effect will be. The present position of our checks and balances is that we aim to achieve two objects. First, we aim to ensure that most guilty people are convicted. I believe that that is being done. If any support is needed for that statement it lies in the research which shows that, when interviewed on the subject, most of the
394
judges, particularly the High Court judges, who have experience of the more serious type of crimes, agree that most of the time the juries reach the right verdicts on the evidence. I do not believe that we need to trouble about that side of the matter. Secondly, it is and must be an object of our criminal justice system that almost all innocent people are acquitted—I say "almost all" because only the Almighty can ensure a system in which every innocent person is acquitted. But the fact is that it is not being done. Looking at the history of the past few years in particular, where a substantial number of convictions have been quashed, it is apparent that it is not being done.
I am not so naive as to believe that because an appellant has his appeal allowed in a court of criminal appeal, it proves that he is innocent. Of course not. But the fact is that among many of the cases where convictions have been quashed in the past few years, there have been a number where beyond peradventure—it is not a matter of something going wrong with the trial or inadmissible evidence of anything of that kind—a totally innocent person has been detained, brought to trial and convicted. In that situation I venture to suggest that this is a very strange time to start deliberately to tilt the balance in favour of the prosecution. It will have incalculable repercussions. It removes one of the cornerstones of what I described as our artificial system of trial and will almost inevitably lead to more innocent people being convicted. There is no other result possible.
I come to my other observation about the right of silence. I know that there will be strong support for the Government's proposals, particularly from many noble Lords opposite. I fully understand that there should be that support. There are many intelligent and articulate people who will say, and indeed convince themselves, that if they were accused of a serious crime, they would at once reveal the full details of the reasons why they were innocent to whoever was investigating the crime. They will say that it is a matter of common sense that any innocent person would do that and that if a person does not do so, it is because he is concealing something and the only thing that he could be concealing is guilt.
I venture to suggest that that is a fallacious and dangerous approach. It is dangerous for two reasons. First, the intelligent and articulate people who put forward that argument—we shall hear it many times in the course of our debates in your Lordships' House—are probably, almost certainly, people who have never been snatched up in the street or had their homes invaded by police officers who have knocked at their door in the early hours of the morning. They have never found themselves hustled off by car to strange and hostile surroundings in a police station to be interrogated by skilled police officers, perfectly properly but nevertheless firmly and terrifyingly. One ventures to wonder whether some at least of those intelligent and articulate people might find it just a little more difficult in those circumstances to tell police officers exactly where they were on such and such a day or exactly why it is, for some reason or other, that they are innocent of the

395
charge and exactly to whom the police can go to interview as witnesses. That is the first reason why I believe that it is a fallacious approach.
The second reason is that in our criminal courts we are not dealing by any means only with charming, intelligent and articulate people. We are dealing very largely with frightened, suspicious people who are often mentally retarded and often under the influence of drink or drugs. Some of them are members of ethnic minorities. We are dealing with people who, for good reason or bad, find themselves terrified when a police officer speaks to them. That raises wholly different issues about the likely conduct of people at police stations which makes it very different from that of those people who say that they would always tell the police straightaway exactly what happened about this, that and the other.
I suggest that there is room for very serious debate on this part of the Bill when we reach it in due course. It would be quite wrong to accept the precarious balance which now exists and which might lead to the conviction of more innocent people.
It is particularly appropriate that in a few moments, when I sit down, your Lordships will hear the maiden speech of the former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry. I hope that he will be able to satisfy me that it is only the perversity of the Irish that has led to the somewhat curious situation over the past four years in Northern Ireland. When the right of silence became limited in the way that is now proposed for England, the result was that a lower proportion of convictions was obtained both for terrorist and non-terrorist offences. Perhaps the sample was inadequate. I do not know. I must confess that it is a very odd result, having regard to the rest of the debate in which we shall all participate.
I have dealt with only two parts of the Bill out of 11. I know that my noble friends Lord Avebury and Lord Mayhew will raise other matters a little later in the debate. There are 152 clauses and 11 schedules with which I have not dealt. I can only hope that the 42 Members of your Lordships' House who are waiting to speak will forgive me if I do not proceed to discuss them further this afternoon.
The Bill was described by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as a ragbag; I would call it a hotch-potch, but it comes to much the same thing. Parts of it, of course, are quite unexceptionable. But if I look at the history of the Bill from the time of its inception, I confess that I begin to think of the Secretary of State as a sort of "Coco Pops" Home Secretary. I visualise him eating his breakfast cereal every morning surrounded by the tabloid newspapers, and almost every morning what he thinks is a bright idea flashes across his mind. Lo and behold, by lunchtime the same day he has tabled it as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, without any reflection, discussion, consultation or research. That is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding. I exempt from that critical comment—because I want to be fair—what I thought was a thoughtful and brave speech he made in
396
the debate on capital punishment in another place, which I hope we shall not have to repeat in your Lordships' House.
In general terms I suggest that this has been no way to legislate and the result is an extremely odd Bill. Your Lordships will deal with the Bill in its various stages. I believe that it will be an uphill task to turn it into something that does not cause irreparable harm to our criminal justice system.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, Sir Denis Henry, the first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, once said to my father—then hoping soon to take Silk—"Lowry, are you nervous when you go into court?" My father resorted to his usual policy in an emergency and took refuge in the truth. "Yes, Chief Justice", he said. The reply was, "Good. When you lose that feeling you are finished". It is some years since I took Silk but at this moment, addressing your Lordships for the first time, my main consolation is that if Sir Denis was right, I may not yet be finished.
I derived great encouragement a short time ago when I looked round the Chamber and saw four old and trusted friends. I refer to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hailsham and Lord Rawlinson, and the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Mason. Divided in some respects, they were united by being friends of mine and friends of all the people of Northern Ireland; united by their caring and supportive attitude at all times.
I had the honour to become a Member of this House 15 years ago. My failure to participate in the debates was not due to any lack of interest in your Lordships' proceedings. To start with, by reason of my former office, I felt inhibited from saying things which might seem contentious; thereafter I continued to feel that I was unlikely to utter thoughts which had not been or would not be expressed as well or better by someone else. Indeed, I still harbour that suspicion. But in venturing to mention the right of silence I have the small personal advantage of possessing some fairly reliable but second-hand information regarding the working of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
Conscious of my duty to avoid controversy I shall try to be as factual as possible in proposing some matters for your Lordships' consideration. I must first declare an interest, or rather bias, in favour of the clauses, but not a blind acceptance of their entire contents. Just before I ceased to be the Lord Chief Justice I was asked what I would think of adopting the parts of the 1972 report which became the 1988 order. I said that I approved in principle and that I thought the proposals should apply to ordinary as well as terrorist crime and should also preferably be applied in England and Wales, which would help to safeguard the reputation of the Diplock system of trial.
In November 1988, after my successor, Sir Brian Hutton, had assumed office, the order was made. I cannot say much about summary proceedings, but I understand that the order worked well in trials on indictment. By far its greatest use has been in relation to the failure of the accused to testify—Article 4

397
corresponds to Clause 33 of the Bill—mainly in the non-jury Diplock courts. Most of my points will relate primarily to the trials. There was an appeal to this House of Murray v.The Director of Public Prosecutions in 1992 when the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against conviction was affirmed and Article 4 was authoritatively discussed by my noble and learned friends Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley. I understand that Article 4 is due for further scrutiny in Strasbourg from the point of view of human rights.
The judges have a formula for calling upon the accused to give evidence but the county court judges, who as well as sharing in the Diplock work conduct most of the jury trials, are, because of that fact, more acutely concerned than the High Court judges with the danger of seeming to side with the prosecution when calling on the accused. It behoves us, taking our cue from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, to be extremely careful about the wording of Clause 30. I am pleased to think that his words have already been heeded, although I am not yet quite sure what would be the best wording for the clause. However, in my opinion, that necessity does not affect the principle. I am also pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that I have not heard of any anxiety among counsel in the Bar Library over the 1988 order.
I chiefly wanted to say something about the Northern Ireland experience, but perhaps I may now be allowed to make one or two other points. First, the aim is a fair trial with a just result. The judge must, in his discretion, tailor his directions to the specific facts. But the jury will, as I am sure it does even now, form views based partly on what the accused said or did not say both before and at the trial. Mistakes will sometimes occur, as they do in all trials. But let us choose and operate the best method of trial. Both the method and the judge's approach to the failure to testify must be watched carefully. Your Lordships will probably remember the cogent examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on a previous occasion in this House when illustrating how even a good judge may be betrayed into making a comment on the failure to give evidence which would be far from justified were the true facts known. I believe that the Bar Council produced a suggestion—I shall not deal with it in detail—which it believes may help in that respect.
Secondly, the innovations could positively help innocent defendants by tending to produce early disclosures in cases where the solicitor, in his prudence but not always in his client's best interests, would at present be likely to counsel reticence. The information given may be checked and found correct and the accused released. At worst he may fare well at the trial, reaping the credit which is nearly always given by the jury to those who make early disclosure.
Thirdly, a prima facie case will always be the prerequisite of operating the new drill. Your Lordships may feel that the burden and standard of proof, despite some comments that have been made, will not be changed. My fourth point is that even now, when one thinks of the evidential burden being transferred, there is, first, the case where the accused elects not to testify. The judge may invite, and the jury almost certainly will
398
draw, conclusions. Secondly, we are already using the notice of alibi procedure. And, thirdly, I recently counted 24 statutory provisions which impose an evidential burden of proof on the accused.
My fifth point is that our present law on what the judge can tell the jury about an accused person's non-disclosure or failure to testify has become so confused that even an experienced judge cannot be sure what to say. Your Lordships may feel that we need a fresh, clear start, agreed after mature debate. And that fresh start may simply amount to the reorganisation of some existing commonsense ideas. The speeches in Murray's appeal show that Clause 33 will not make a great change in reality. I might add that a tidying operation is likely to have more effect in a jury trial by cutting down the chance of confusion and alleged misdirection by the judge. This does not apply in quite the same way in a non-jury criminal trial.
Finally, your Lordships will know that the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 gave the accused and spouse the right to testify and that Section 1B prohibited the prosecution from commenting on their failure to give evidence. I believe that that provision was an attempt to satisfy opponents of the Bill. I believe also that it was a most unfortunate idea, because, instead of having Crown counsel comment with moderation. as one would hope, and subject to scrutiny by the judge, the situation is that a judge who comments, as in a proper case he may, can appear to the jury to be doing the prosecution's job and siding against the defendant.
The debates on the measure, both in this House and in another place, make fascinating reading and, as with this Bill, give us a sight of distinguished lawyers and laymen strongly divided. Speeches for and against transcended party lines and your Lordships will find those great criminal advocates and political opponents, Edward Carson and T.M. Healy, united in opposing the Bill, one result of which was that the change did not make its appearance in Ireland until an Act of Northern Ireland in 1923. There were in place, curiously enough, by 1898 26 Acts which in specific cases allowed the accused and spouse to give evidence, and those in favour of the Bill appealed to the experience under those Acts, as perhaps some of your Lordships may do in relation to the experience in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may wish to ponder how far the forebodings of those who were against the Bill are justified 96 years later.
Your Lordships have heard me most patiently. I apologise humbly for the fact that the clock, which I think has an ordinary speed, has reached the figure of 12. I would now crave your Lordships' further indulgence if I leave the Chamber momentarily at six o'clock and for a slightly longer time at half-past seven.
This is a time for principle, not for detail. But the right formula must be found to help the jury apply their logic and common sense while the law and the practice of the trial court scrupulously ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of every accused.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, when I first saw the list of speakers this afternoon I said to myself, "What a marvellously lucky fellow I am. The first time I have put my name down on a Second Reading for a very long time and I have to begin by congratulating an old friend and a man whom I very greatly admire, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, on his maiden speech"—and I believe I do so on behalf of the whole House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am particularly happy that he has chosen this occasion for his maiden speech because, of all the lawyers in this House —and quite a number are present this afternoon —he is probably the only one who has had operational experience of some of the proposals in the Bill on a most contentious and delicate matter. I hope he will help us at the later stages of the Bill when we come to deal with them in detail. But in the meantime, he has been at the sharp end and I believe that he has made a real contribution to the Second Reading debate by making his maiden speech on this occasion; and if I may be allowed to say so, we fully understand the reasons which led him as Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland, and later as a Lord of Appeal, to retain his silence in our deliberative discussions for so long. It was a pity, but he did the right thing in the right way.
It has been said more than once that this is a massive Bill. It is nearly 180 pages long. It has five parts, 152 clauses and 11 schedules. In the circumstances it is almost irresistible to make one's speech a long catalogue of Committee and Report stage comments. But I wish to resist that temptation. There were moments during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when I thought that he was perhaps falling into the trap.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. We believe that it is the duty of the peer speaking from the Opposition Front Bench to give some indication of the way in which we shall be proceeding with the Bill at later stages. That is why it was necessary to go into rather more detail than I would otherwise have wished.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Lord admits that there was a certain amount of truth underlying my criticism. I want to avoid falling into that trap myself and also to avoid any form of party political speech. That was the course recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his speech. I am not sure that there was not a time in his treatment of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when he had forgotten his own good advice. But we shall have plenty of opportunity to go into that later.
I wish to speak in support of the Bill and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers on what I thought was an admirably concise and restrained contribution to the debate. The Government are to be congratulated on tackling this problem. Despite some
400
slightly encouraging details in the latest figures published last week, it is a melancholy fact that, since the war, crime has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. The purpose of criminal justice is to prevent, detect and convict the guilty and to subject them to appropriate penal treatment, and to acquit the innocent. I emphasise the last point, not, I suppose, for the first time in this debate, because it ought to go without saying, although it must still be said, that in our anxiety to convict the guilty we should not be seduced into cutting any corners, reducing the safeguards properly surrounding the burden or the standard of proof of guilt—the safeguards surrounding suspects—or diminishing the duty of human treatment of those in custody, whether as convicted criminals or on remand. To do so would not merely be unjust—and it would be unjust—but it would also, at least in my opinion, be counterproductive. I believe that it would reduce the conviction rate by encouraging perverse acquittals and undermining the confidence of the public in the underlying justice and humanity of the system.
At this stage it is right for me to emphasise the fact that it is also a melancholy truth that both the detection rate and the conviction rate of crime have diminished over recent years. When nearly quarter of a century ago I was first appointed Lord Chancellor, the conviction rate in England and Wales as regards indictable offences on pleas of not guilty was of the order of 70 per cent. I wish that it had been higher, as long as innocent people were not convicted. But it is now standing at less than half. I believe that the rate is now about 40 per cent. unless I am mistaken. Therefore, there is every reason to congratulate the Government on making a serious attempt to address the problem.
This is no time for a serious discussion of the causes of crime. But there is one point which I believe I should make. It is my conviction that among the causes is a general decline in public moral standards in the broadest sense of the word. I am not now talking about any particular religious or philosophic tradition. The point is not a religious one, but it was well made in a little remembered volume called The Abolition of Man by the late C.S. Lewis. To illustrate it I am going to quote (or very nearly quote) from his biographer, Mr. A.N. Wilson. He said that Lewis's contention, which cannot historically be denied, was that there has been a system of values discernible in almost all moral and religious centres from the beginning of literature until the mid-20th century.
To emphasise that he was not just talking about Judaeo-Christian tradition, but something deeper and wider than that, Lewis borrowed the Chinese word and called this system of values "the Tao". He quoted in support of his thesis from old Norse, ancient Egyptian moral literature, the Chinese Analects and the classical authors Cicero and Epictetus to establish,
"the existence of something outside individual feelings or the purely utilitarian requirements of a society, something which might be termed a generally accepted standard of right and wrong".
According to Mr. Wilson,
"All these sources abhor murder, dishonesty, theft, unkindness, disregard of the old, cruelty to children and ruthless justice untempered by mercy".

401
In the long run I believe it to be the case that only a restoration of a generally-held respect for moral values in this sense will serve our purpose; and that cannot be directly achieved by Act of Parliament.
In debating this Bill we are dealing with the fact of crime and not any generalised theory of the kind which I have been discussing. It is therefore inevitable that we should be dealing with a series of practical proposals on a wide range of different subjects, each of which has to be discussed and argued at a later stage in terms of its particular merits. The Government here are concerned with the art of the possible. We have to deal with the situation as it is.
I was glad to hear my noble friend in opening this debate fix in the first place on three particular areas of discussions which have also attracted the attention of the three previous speakers. These areas are the widespread commission of repetitive, serious offences by juveniles; the continued commission of offences by persons while out on bail; and the inferences which it is legitimate, or not, to draw from silence by the accused during the course of criminal proceedings, starting from the first interviews with the police to the moment of summing up by the judge, verdict or judgment, as the case may be, as happens, as we have already heard, in Northern Ireland.
I wish to emphasise that I am no advocate of severity for its own sake. You do not improve a man's character by depriving him of his liberty, especially if that means associating him compulsorily with other known delinquents. There is no evidence that severity as such deters crime. After respect for moral values, the best deterrent is certainty of detection and certainty of conviction.
However, in addition to the cases cited by my noble friend at the beginning, the other day there was a widely reported case of a juvenile aged 13 years, I believe, who was guilty of 225 offences, mainly of burglary and theft. There comes a time when it is necessary to protect the public against the serious repetition of crimes of this kind. We must not forget that crimes against property are very often associated, and almost invariably ultimately lead, to crimes against the person, including violence.
If you are going to resort to custody of any kind, it is not a question of locking the offender up for as long as you can get away with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said in one remarkable passage in his speech, but you must provide training at the same time. It is perfectly true that the chances of re-offending are very much greater for juveniles of this kind than one would like. Training is no guarantee against re-offending. But in some cases training may be effective. In any case, it is only rational and more humane not to leave the young person in prison by himself, stewing in his own juice, without any kind of treatment at all or any attempt at treatment.
The second point is bail. I have interested myself in this subject, at any rate since my first term as Lord Chancellor. I am not making a party political point about it at all. I began, I remember, with a speech to magistrates in Gloucester in which I said that the presumption must usually be in favour of bail. The man
402
has not been convicted and is therefore presumed innocent. I also criticised the government of the day when I was in opposition for changing the criteria which then existed. I criticised this Government when I spoke from this Bench for continuing the same criteria in a relaxed form. I predicted that if the new criteria were continued without alteration there would be a gradual increase in the number of offences committed while on bail, and that has happened. The number of offences committed while on bail is, I believe, currently at the rate of about 50,000, which is too many.
It has always been my contention that there comes a time when the chances of offending while on bail present an unacceptable risk to the magistrates or other bail authorities. It may be the gravity of the offence. When I first went on circuit as a judge's marshal in 1931 to Mr. Justice Roche, as he then was, he told me that in cases of murder, bail was almost never granted. This Bill is much milder than that. It states that you have only to have a previous conviction for one of these very serious offences for the presumption to be removed. The Government are to be congratulated on dealing with this subject.
Thirdly, I do not wish to add much, although I had intended to say something more, about the highly contentious matter of the right of silence, so called. It must be said at the outset that a man, an accused person—I always refer to him as a man, and must be added that he nearly always is —is entitled to speak and entitled to remain silent. That right remains inviolate. Nobody can make him speak and nobody can make him remain silent. There is also a stage in the earlier stages of the investigation when the prosecuting authorities must be disciplined by refusing to admit evidence improperly or oppressively obtained: that I fully agree with. But after that the question is one of relevance, and the test of relevance is whether it is or can be thought reasonably to be logically probative, and the judges of relevance are the tribunals of fact: the judge in summing up to the jury, the jury in giving its verdict, the Diplock judge in Northern Ireland, who tries the case alone, or in the case of 95 per cent. and more of the crime which is in fact dealt with in England, the magistrates' court.
There is too much mystagogery about this business and too much gobbledegook. The fact is that the rule is or should be that which I think the the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, said in his maiden speech—that the test should be one of common sense and logic—and the standard and burden of proof should remain where they are, namely on the prosecution to prove its case.
For these reasons I think the Government are to be congratulated on introducing this Bill. It will no doubt be carefully scrutinised on Committee and on Report, though I hope less carefully on Third Reading. In the meantime, I commend it to the House for Second Reading.

Gorazde
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about Bosnia.
"In response to the continued Bosnian Serb shelling of Gorazde and the horrifying civilian casualties which resulted, the United Nations Secretary-General wrote on 18th April to the Secretary-General of NATO, asking Dr. Woerner to obtain as soon as possible a decision of the North Atlantic Council to authorise the use of air strikes at UN request to protect the safe areas as provided for in UNSCR 836.
"In spite of attempts by UNPROFOR and others to achieve a ceasefire, the shelling of Gorazde continued unabated. The North Atlantic Council met on 20th April and decided that military advice should be sought urgently on the UN Secretary-General's request and that they should reconvene on 22nd April to take the necessary decisions. Meanwhile further consultations took place between the UN and NATO and between Member States of the two organisations. Senior Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence officials were in Washington to discuss additional proposals put forward by the United States. Russia was kept informed of developments.
"The United Nations Security Council met early on 22nd April and passed Security Council Resolution 913, which called on the Bosnian Serbs and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to conclude an immediate ceasefire agreement under the auspices of UNPROFOR, condemned the Bosnian Serb shelling of Gorazde and demanded the withdrawal of Bosnian Serb forces to a distance to be agreed by UNPROFOR. The resolution also called for an end to provocative action by all parties in and around the safe areas, and demanded the immediate release of all UN personnel and unimpeded freedom of movement for UNPROFOR.
"When the North Atlantic Council met on 22nd April, it authorised Commander-in-Chief (Southern Command), Admiral Smith, to conduct air strikes against Bosnian Serb heavy artillery and other military targets within a radius of 20 kilometres from the centre of Gorazde unless: (a) Bosnian Serb attacks on Gorazde ceased immediately; (b) Bosnian Serb forces pulled back 3 kilometres from the centre of Gorazde by one minute past midnight on 24th April; and (c) UN forces were free to enter Gorazde and medical evacuations were permitted.
"In a further set of decisions, the NAC established a 'military exclusion zone for 20 kilometres around Gorazde, from which all heavy weapons must be withdrawn by 0001 GMT on 27th April, or be subject to NATO air strikes'.
"The North Atlantic Council also decided that if there were an attack by heavy weapons against Bihac,
404
Srebrenica, Tuzla or Zepa, from any range, or if in the judgment of NATO and UN military commanders there were any threatening movement or concentration of heavy weaponry within 20 kilometres of those areas, they would immediately be designated, individually or collectively, as military exclusion zones along the lines of that in Gorazde. If any Bosnian Serb heavy weapons were found within designated military exclusion zones around the safe areas after 0001 GMT on 27th April, then they and Bosnian Serb military support facilities would be subject to air strikes. It was agreed that any such attacks would be carried out using the agreed co-ordination procedures with UNPROFOR. So this is a dual key arrangement between the UN and NATO. Either can propose air strikes; both have to agree.
"On 23rd April the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in the former Yugoslavia reached an agreement with the Bosnian Serb military and civilian authorities, in which a ceasefire was declared around Gorazde with effect from midday on 23rd April.
"It was also agreed that UNPROFOR would deploy a battalion to Gorazde to monitor the ceasefire; Bosnian Serb heavy weapons would be withdrawn outside a 20 kilometre radius from the centre of Gorazde by midnight on 26th April at the latest; evacuations would be allowed to proceed; all UN and humanitarian personnel should have complete freedom of movement; and that negotiations on disengagement should start immediately.
"I understand that the Bosnian Serbs are now complying with the terms of this agreement. UNPROFOR deployed a company of Ukrainians, together with a Nordic medical team and 15 military observers to Gorazde shortly before midnight on 23rd April. A further UNPROFOR convoy, comprising a British company from the 1st Duke of Wellington Regiment and Russian, Egyptian and further Ukrainian elements arrived in Gorazde on the morning of 24th April. The evacuation of the wounded is proceeding, supported by British and French helicopters. We have agreed to a request from UNHCR to take 50 of the wounded, and are working closely with UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration on arrangements. NATO and UNPROFOR remain in close contact. Sarajevo and most of the rest of Bosnia remain relatively calm.
"Air strikes are not an end in themselves. We hope that they will not be necessary. If in the judgment of NATO and the UN they are necessary, then no one should doubt that they will be undertaken. The first and urgent objective is a lasting ceasefire, first at Gorazde and then more widely in Bosnia. This should in turn lead to a resumption of the peace process. A negotiated settlement remains the only way to a lasting peace, including a substantial Bosnian Serb withdrawal from territory that they now occupy. European Union Foreign Ministers on 18th April and the North Atlantic Council on 22nd April reaffirmed their support for that process, welcoming close co-ordination between the

405
European Union, Russia and the US, with the aim of bringing our diplomatic initiatives more closely together.
"I am meeting Secretary of State Christopher and French Foreign Minister Juppé today on these matters and they will be a theme of the Anglo-German Summit on Wednesday."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I welcome the Statement as a rather clearer strategy on ending the fighting and bringing about a cease-fire than we have had for some months. I welcome particularly the decision to include all the safe areas in the ultimatum to the Serbs rather than to concentrate on Gorazde alone, thus allowing the Serbs cynically to transfer their activities elsewhere and to start shelling another safe haven as happened after their withdrawal from Sarajevo.
Our concern however on these Benches is that that strategy should be adhered to, and that the Serb forces that have shelled the hospital in Gorazde and terrorised thousands of civilians should understand that a failure to respond to the demands of the United Nations and NATO will result in air strikes. In particular, I should be grateful for assurances that the disagreements between NATO and the United Nations, only too apparent over the weekend, are now a thing of the past. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that there will be no repetition of the disputes between Mr. Akashi in Bosnia, Mr. Woerner in Brussels and Admiral Leighton Smith the NATO southern commander?
We also welcome the fact that the Russians are now to be kept informed about NATO decisions after the serious failure in communications two weeks ago. Does the Minister accept that statements made by the Russian Foreign Minister, after his visit to Belgrade, by Mr. Vitali Churkin, the Russian envoy in Bosnia, and by the Russian ambassador to the United Nations in the past few days have been helpful and indicate that the Russian Government wish now to take firm action against the Serbs if they do not respond to the new ultimatum?
Since time is now short for the Serbs to respond, will the Minister give the House some indication of what progress has been made by the Serb forces to withdraw by the deadline of tomorrow midnight? Will she also indicate by what means the monitoring of Serb movements in Bihac, Srebrenica, Tuzla and Zepa will be undertaken? While I very much welcome the deployment of additional troops, including British troops, to monitor the cease-fire in Gorazde, I am sure that the Minister will agree that there must be adequate troops on the grounds to monitor the progress that is being made in the other safe havens. Is she completely satisfied that there are adequate troops on the ground to ensure that that takes place effectively?
It would also be most helpful if the Minister would comment on newspaper reports which claim that, even if the Serbs refrain from encroaching upon the other safe havens, they intend to try to capture other territory along the Sava River and in Brcko? Have plans been made to deal with that eventuality?
406
I understand that while medical evacuations from Gorazde are now taking place, medical and humanitarian aid staff have not been able to do that unimpeded and have suffered from various degrees of Serb harassment and that the Serbs are burning down property as they withdraw. Will the. Minister confirm that if that continues, action will be taken against Serb forces?
Finally, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary will today be meeting Mr. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State, and the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Juppé. But will the Minister put a little more flesh on the Statement that it is intended to bring more closely together diplomatic initiatives taken by Russia, the European Union, and the United States? We have seen three separate and undesirably unco-ordinated initiatives going on for far too long, involving the Russian envoy Mr. Churkin, the United States envoy Mr. Charles Redmond and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg. It is the lack of any clear political strategy and a failure to co-ordinate attempts to achieve a lasting negotiated settlement that have led to the position in Gorazde today. Are new objectives now being set on the longer-term political strategy, and, if so, what are they?
We on this side of the House accept that air strikes are not an end in themselves. However, if the latest UN resolutions are ignored by the Serbs, and there is no military response from NATO, what hope is there that we shall get the cease-fire that is so desperately needed and which must be the basis upon which further progress towards long-term peace is made.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on the situation in Bosnia made by her right honourable friend in another place. I should like also to associate myself with many of the things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and, in particular, with the point she made that whatever one may think about the effectiveness of air strikes, if one is going to issue ultimata, those ultimata must be carried out. Far too often we have made threats which have not been fulfilled. That leads to a loss of credibility by the UN, the European Union and NATO.
Secondly, I should like also to associate myself with what the noble Baroness said about the importance to which I have drawn attention on a number of occasions of getting the Russians on board. Their role in this whole matter, and in dealing with the Serbs, is crucial. Unless we take them along with us, we are unlikely to be successful.
There are a number of questions that I should like to put to the Minister that were not covered by her Statement. For example, what has happened about the release of UN personnel in response to UN Security Council Resolution 913 of 22nd April? Have all UN personnel who were kidnapped or taken hostage by the Bosnian Serbs been released? Secondly, what progress is being made in supplying General Rose with the troops for which he asked? The progress was deeply disappointing when we were told about it last week. It seems to me to be impossible for him to carry out the

407
duties and obligations placed upon him unless he is given the troops which he says are required. The other point raised last week was that those troops are required in order to make safe areas safe, because unless they can be protected, to call them safe areas, is nonsense. It is the kind of rhetoric contained in the Government Statement last week which was deplored, but in which they may themselves be indulging.
Thirdly, have the Russians agreed that it is legitimate to protect safe areas by UNPROFOR troops if those safe areas are attacked? That is a crucial question. I saw in the newspapers—I do not know whether it is true—that the Russians had some reservations about that. I regard it as a central issue. If we are to have safe areas, there must be troops to defend them. If we have troops to defend them, those troops must be allowed to protect them properly and by force.
I note that the Foreign Secretary is going to meet the US Secretary of State later this afternoon. While recognising the substantial contribution that the US made in brokering a peace between Croatia and Bosnia, a whole series of statements have been issued from the White House and elsewhere which have been, to say the least, confused if not positively contradictory. That does not help the peace process.
Finally, I must refer to what seems to me to be the central weakness in our operations in Bosnia. It is referred to in the Statement as "dual key". It seems to me that that dual key is what makes it so easy for the Serbs to run rings around what we do. I suggest that the Minister look at the dates which the Statement records to see what the situation is. On 18th April the UN Secretary-General asked the Secretary-General of NATO to authorise air strikes; on 20th April the NATO Council meets and decides that it must obtain military advice; on 22nd April the UN Security Council meets; on 22nd April the NATO Council meets and authorises the use of air strikes and an exclusion zone with an ultimatum to 24th April, and a further ultimatum to 27th April. That is a long time; it is more than a week. Surely in military affairs one cannot spend a week considering things before one takes action. If the UN and NATO are to prove effective in dealing with problems of this kind, the decision-making process must be abbreviated, the relations between the UN and NATO must be made clearer and the commanders on the ground must be given more discretion.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for their comments. The noble Baroness said that the situation was clearer, which we have wanted for a long time. Last week I was becoming increasingly anxious that the clarity was not there.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that it may have taken time to achieve full UN and NATO agreement on all aspects of dealing with this matter, but I believe that it is right and worth while. At the same time, we have persuaded the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from Gorazde and have put in place the measures that
408
will be taken if they do not agree with the demands to which I referred in repeating my right honourable friend's Statement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me about what she perceived as disagreements between the UN and NATO. As was made clear in the Statement, NATO is acting in support of UN Security Council resolutions. The importance of the dual key, which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, criticised, is that it enables the UN, which has the mandate for the ground operations, to assess any request in the context of that mandate and also of its peace efforts and the safety of all UN personnel on the ground.
As regards verification of compliance with the agreement and the UN and NATO decision, that must be a joint effort between the UN and NATO, with ground observation backed up by air reconnaissance. I believe that the action of the Serbs in withdrawing their forces results from the fact that they are no longer under any illusion that there will be air strikes if they fail to comply. I believe it right that the authorisation of those air strikes is and must remain a matter for agreement by the United Nations Secretary General's special representatives and the commanders on the ground. That decision was clearly set out in both NAC decisions of 22nd April, discussion also having taken place at the United Nations Security Council.
The noble Baroness asked me about avoiding disagreements between the Russians and others. We realised that the roles played by Mr. Kozyrev and Mr. Churkin, first, in achieving the Croat-Bosnian peace and recently in persuading the Serbs that no longer will the international community accept the activity of the Bosnian Serbs against the Moslems of Gorazde and other safe areas are important. I believe too that it is right that we now have the power to deal with all six so-called safe areas, as the noble Baroness welcomed. The monitoring that she asked me about will be done by EC monitors in the area and also by UN monitors.
The noble Baroness referred to a newspaper report that the Serbs are trying to gather strength to take action further up the river. That is being investigated at this very moment. I have seen the reports only in newspapers and have no collateral on a Foreign Office basis. It is true that some of the Serbs as they withdrew burned property, but they have been further warned about such action.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord went on to ask me about the peace process and the reinforcement of forces. The restrictions on movements of UNPROFOR troops and UN military observers have been lifted overall. As regards reinforcements, your Lordships will remember that the United Kingdom operated a lobby on other member states to provide the additional troops. That is how the UN has come to receive from member states firm offers of more than 7,700 additional troops. The deployment of some 5,700 of those troops is proceeding. I mentioned Ukrainian and Russian troops, but there are also additional British, French and Spanish troops in those contingents. The deployment of further troops, in addition to the 5,800 authorised by Security Council Resolution No. 908, will depend on the passing of a further resolution. That in turn will depend on the

409
readiness of all members of the Security Council to make available the necessary resources. That has not yet happened.
I say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that as regards bringing together all those who are seeking to achieve peace, the United States and Russia are playing a valuable role and are keeping in close touch with the European Union and the UN. We believe that the progress that has been made in recent days and during the weekend is good. UNPROFOR and the US and Russian envoys are working on the wider Bosnia ceasefire agreement in Sarajevo and Pale. There is a great deal going on. We are at one with the Russians in seeking to stop the action and they are being fully involved in the process, as I have described.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to say when General Sir Michael Rose will receive the 8,000 men for whom he asked quite a time ago? In answering the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I did not understand my noble friend to say when that figure will be attained and whether it will be attained, as General Rose has indicated it should be, almost immediately. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer that question.
I hope too that she will also be able to answer the question which I put to her last week. When she talks about air strikes, does she mean serious air attacks by a significant number of aircraft and not the inadequate attacks by a couple of aircraft, which apparently are all that have been used and which were quite ineffective?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend did not follow my explanation about the additional troops. As a result of British efforts at the United Nations, the UN received firm offers of more than 7,700 troops. It has been possible to deploy only 5,800, as authorised by Security Council Resolution No. 908, because it depends on the readiness of all members of the Security Council to make the necessary resources available. More than 5,800 troops are not covered by the financial consideration. Therefore, General Rose will be short of troops by some 2,200. As the peace spreads it may be necessary to help further. We are working on the matter at this very moment and I can assure my noble friend that Britain has done all that was asked of her.
As regards air strikes and the way in which they differ from close air support operations, which were the two aircraft to which my noble friend referred, close air support is authorised in defence of UNPROFOR. It is limited to targets which are directly attacking and threatening UNPROFOR. However, the NATO decisions of 22nd April allow for a widespread use of air power in defence of the safe areas. That involves a much wider range of targets and consequently a much wider range of aircraft.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether the constant reference to the Bosnian Serbs is correct because surely there is no question but that Milosevic and his dream of the greater Serbia is behind the whole of the Serb effort and that
410
without greater Serbia, the whole thing would fail? Are we keeping up pressure both in the form of economic sanctions and the blockade, which is absolutely necessary if they are to come to the negotiating table? Does the noble Baroness agree that the real opponent of peace is the greater Serbia, the dream of Milosevic?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that yes, economic sanctions and pressures on Serbia are continuing. I note carefully what he said about the greater Serbian dream of Mr. Milosevic and others in Serbia. I think that it would be fair to say that that has been taken forward by the Bosnian Serbs with even greater ferocity than the Serbs first envisaged. But I do not differ from the noble Lord as regards the overall danger. There are those in Serbia who still wish to see a greater Serbia and who will not yet have given up that view. Indeed, the Russians have been most helpful in making the point to Mr. Milosevic and to others. Certainly, the discussions taking place in Sarajevo and Pale concern not only the Bosnian Serbs but also the ambitions of many Serbs.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is not the. reality of the situation that the Bosnian Serbs are playing cat and mouse with the United Nations; that they will continue to play cat and mouse with the United Nations unless there is massive destruction of their armaments, rather along the lines of the old concept of Article 16 of the League of Nations—masive military engagement? Not only will they continue to play cat and mouse, but they have no intention whatever of ceding a yard or—I suppose one should say—a metre of the land which they have gained and which they are set to gain by force if they can. Is that not the reality of the situation? If it is the reality, surely the only answer is massive air strikes which cripple their tanks, their heavy weapons, their air-to-surface missiles and their communications?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend advocates a much greater course of military action by NATO and by UNPROFOR than is advocated by the parties which have given support to the UNPROFOR Security Council resolutions and the North Atlantic Council meetings. The reason for that is that they believe that the massive action advocated by my noble friend would lead to a spread of the warfare in the area and not to a cessation of it.
In the discussions which are taking place in Sarajevo and Pale and in future discussions, there will be measures to deal with the great amount of weaponry which exists, as there have been already in relation to the Croats and the Moslems in Bosnia. However, I do not believe that there would be anything to stop the Russians then withdrawing their tacit agreement to the moves that have been made if all-out massive air strikes were started. I know that it would not only stop all humanitarian action, but I believe that it could lead also to a much more disastrous situation than that with which we have to deal at present. We must be careful.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may support the noble Baroness in her answer to the noble Lords, Lord

411
Campbell of Alloway and Lord Bonham-Carter. I believe that I am right in thinking that the countries of the advanced world are trying together to do something utterly new, which amounts in shorthand to no less than forging the future of the United Nations. To try to do that in terms of hasty or over-weighty reactions would be a very great mistake.
I should like to ask two factual questions so that we may better understand what is going on there. In the past week, has there been any military production facility inside Gorazde? If so, has it been in working order? What other soldiers, if any, besides those of UNPROFOR, are inside Gorazde? If there are any, are they armed or have they turned in their arms to UNPROFOR?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his first comment. We are indeed pursuing a difficult path, but we are pursuing it with the outcome as advocated by the North Atlantic Council in a far better way than might have been imagined just a week ago.
As regards the military production of armaments within Gorazde, I cannot give him a detailed answer. There is a munitions factory at the centre or Gorazde, but the last I heard, it was not in production. The noble Lord asked whether there are soldiers other than UNPROFOR soldiers in Gorazde. As far as we know, there are no Bosnian Serb or Serb soldiers in Gorazde. There are some Bosnian moslems. Some of them will have turned in their weapons, but one can never be sure that they have all done so. I cannot give the noble Lord a complete answer, but all those matters to which he has alluded are well within the consciousness of the commander of the UNPROFOR troops in Gorazde.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I wonder whether we can be told what lessons the Government have learned from this weekend's apparent disagreements over command and control of this potential operation. It seems to me absolutely essential, when operations are mounted, that there is a single and unique command in control. I find that the dual-key concept is highly unsatisfactory when people are being placed in a war situation. Is it clear that those who hold those two keys have available to them all the intelligence and information about Bosnian Serb positions and so on which are essential in order to arrive at a view as to how to make an attack?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord. Either the NATO or United Nations commander can initiate the request for action. Both are being given all available intelligence. But the agreement must have the authority of the NATO southern commander before any wish by the UN can be implemented. It has been decided that that is the only way that we can move forward satisfactorily—in other words, either can initiate but both must agree—because for NATO to act without the full support of the UN commander on the ground would not be successful; and there can be no question of success being able to be achieved solely by the UN commander on the ground. I
412
hope that we shall see more understanding of what General Sir Michael Rose and Admiral Smith are seeking to achieve. They certainly have full contact with Mr. Akashi. I believe that we can begin to put behind us some of the misunderstandings, some of which have been on the part of the press rather than on the part of those on the ground.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us something about the role of Mr. Akashi? He has the benefit of being Japanese and is therefore as neutral as anybody can be, whereas we in the West are thought to be on one side or another.
Secondly, will she say something more about the clarity that has now been achieved with regard to the two keys policy? As has already been said, two keys means two keys. Is it not the case also that when people advocate massive intervention, they are ignoring the lessons to be learned from the last war when Serb and Croat partisans and Chetniks managed to hold down six German divisions for four years?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's great experience in such matters. I am also especially aware of the experience that many noble Lords will have had as very young men at the time of the last war. There is no doubt that it is for the Serbs to take the action which I outlined when repeating the Statement. Certainly I do not believe that the Serbs are under any illusion: if they fail to comply there will be air strikes. It was Mr. Akashi who made that absolutely clear to all parties. Moreover, Mr. Akashi has taken part in all the discussions within Sarajevo and Pale and has also been working very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, Mr. Stoltenberg, Mr. Redmond of the United States, Mr. Churkin of the Russians and the military commanders.
I understand the anxiety felt by many noble Lords about the dual key solution. However, we have always known, as I said when repeating the Statement, that air strikes alone could not achieve the cessation of the civil war. That is why we have most carefully gone about ensuring that, if action needs to be taken, it is co-ordinated action between the UNPROFOR commander with men on the ground and the NATO commander, with the full support of the United Nations, which is given by Resolution 836.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Government refrain from asking the Security Council to authorise the full complement of troops requested by General Rose because they feared that other members of the Security Council would not agree? If so, which were they? Secondly, can the Minister say a little more about the warning that was given to the Serbs not to destroy civilian property during the withdrawal and what penalties they will suffer if they do so? Thirdly, can the Minister say what has happened about the artillery surrounding Sarajevo which was recently retaken by the Serbs after having been in UN custody?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, no. The answer to his second question is that the Bosnian Serb commanders have had made absolutely clear to them, as

413
I outlined when repeating the Statement, the way in which the whole matter would be tackled and by what time and on what date. I do not think that I need repeat it. The noble Lord's third question was about the artillery taken by the Bosnian Serbs from a French UNPROFOR group, which was outnumbered by more than five to one when it happened. That artillery has been returned to the supervision of UNPROFOR troops.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have one further question for the Minister. Does the noble Baroness agree that the worst possible command is a two-key command? If there is consultation among three, one might at least arrive at a decision.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, a few moments ago in answer to another question I said that I understood the anxiety felt by many noble Lords in the matter. However, when we have UNPROFOR forces on the ground in many different places, including the other safe areas, and when we are to increase those UNPROFOR officers on the ground, I believe that it is absolutely vital that not only should we be in contact with the UNPROFOR commanders but that they also must be in contact with the NATO commanders. That means having agreement for the protection of those troops. Should air strikes have to go ahead, one would need to consider the withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops to safe areas. The protection of our troops must still be very much in the forefront of our minds. That is why we have a dual key arrangement.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether heavy weapons that have now been taken into custody by United Nations troops are being disabled, so that it does not matter if they are taken back by the Serbs'? Alternatively, is there some legal problem involved in disablement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, so far as I know, there is no legal problem about disabling the weaponry. That is certainly a point which has been made absolutely clear. When some of the original weaponry was taken, including the guns taken by the Serbs from the French contingent, they were not disabled. However, I hope that all equipment will now be disabled.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
5.15 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, on his maiden speech. His wisdom and fairness have been admired for many years by those of us who have been fortunate enough to see him on rare occasions in the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. It is unfortunate that it has been 15 years before the full House has had the benefit of his experience. However, I hope that it will not be 15 years before the noble and learned Lord speaks again.
414
For 24 years, I have worked virtually daily within the criminal justice system, both prosecuting and defending as a member of the criminal Bar. I shall no doubt be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that I am the only current, full-time, specialist criminal practitioner in your Lordships' House. I was in the Crown Court on Friday and I shall be there again tomorrow. Therefore, my experience, unlike that of many noble Lords who have held offices ranging from the highest positions of state to extensive experience in many areas of the criminal Bar and, indeed, the commercial Bar, is very much at the coal face of the criminal justice system.
Many areas of the vast Bill now before us need radical amendment in your Lordships' House. Secure training orders are just one aspect. I mention them only to pass on, because there are 45 speakers on the list and I hope to speak on the matter in due course at a later stage. Today, I should like to speak only about Part III of the Bill and in particular the proposals in relation to the right of silence. I believe that those proposals are a recipe for further miscarriages of justice. They are, above all others in the Bill, the proposals which cause me the gravest disquiet.
The present law is a delicate balance which has beer, honed over something like three centuries, ever since the privilege against self-incrimination was spelt out during the persecution of the Puritans during the reign of Charles I when the government made use of the Court of Star Chamber to attack their political opponents. The right of silence, as it exists today, has three fundamental justifications. First, it reflects the overriding principle of our criminal justice system which presumes innocence until guilt is proved. Secondly, it affords protection to the vulnerable; and, thirdly, it is simple. The words of the present caution and the defendant's position in law if he chooses not to speak are universally known and understood.
The proposed changes outlined by the Minister will create an effective inducement to answer police questions by shifting the burden on to the suspect. A new style caution will warn him of the consequences of his silence as a way of extracting an explanation. If he fails to give one, his silence may be used as positive evidence of guilt and may then be employed to demonstrate that his defence is untrue and his credibility undermined.
Not only are those provisions of doubtful legality so far as concerns European law—no doubt we shall hear more about that in Committee—but also discretionary comment by a judge of the kind envisaged is likely to have an adverse influence on the fairness of the proceedings and lead, in my view, to wrongful convictions for three main reasons. First, it can only encourage a jury to speculate on why the defendant has chosen to remain silent. Secondly, it renders the direction which the judge gives on the burden of proof a nonsense. With one breath he will be telling the jury that, from the defendant's silence, they may infer guilt, and then, in the next breath, he will be telling them that the burden of proving the case against the defendant rests on the prosecution. Thirdly, it will put pressure on a vulnerable suspect.

415
I have already heard, as indeed we all have, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, speak of vulnerable suspects, but I wonder how many of those who have not actually practised at the Criminal Bar and represented clients, largely on legal aid, have any idea of how high a proportion of those who are arrested, questioned and subsequently stand trial fall within that category. Vulnerable suspects may not be obviously physically or mentally unfit. They could be frightened, confused or inarticulate—indeed they usually are. They might give an inaccurate or a partial or a misleading or even a false account of events, possibly on occasions to protect a third person, although they are innocent of crime themselves.
Great public anxiety is prevalent about the level of crime and it is of course legitimate for the Government, in this Bill, and for the whole community to examine the criminal justice system to see if ways of improving it, which will reduce the level of crime, can be found. But the provision to which I refer will make no significant contribution to reducing crime or to convicting the guilty and carries with it a very real danger of convicting a number of the innocent as well. Improvements could be made. I daresay one would hear no moaning at the Bar if there were proposals that the defendant, once he knew the case against him, having received the statements from the prosecution and having had the benefit of legal advice, was required to disclose those issues which the defence would be likely to raise at trial. However, the Bill goes very much further than that. It is of the greatest significance that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which examined this matter in such detail and with such care, by a majority of 9–2 recommended that the law in this respect remain unchanged.
We are in a very real danger, as a result of genuine public fears about crime and about guilty people escaping justice, of equating the accused with the criminal. They are not necessarily the same thing. We are constantly told that the emphasis should be upon the victim and not the criminal. I wholeheartedly agree that often the victims's feelings and sufferings seem to take second place and that that is wrong. But how does it help the victim if you convict the wrong person? All that does is create more victims. Political expediency has dictated these amendments but political expediency must never be allowed to undermine the fundamental principles of our system of justice. Nor must the discretion of a judge be allowed to replace an ancient right which affords protection to the innocent wrongly accused.
The Royal Commission was born not only of widespread public concern about the crime rate but also of concern about miscarriages of justice. Unhappily, I have experience of that, too, having represented someone who served a good part of a life sentence before being released by the Court of Appeal, plainly not guilty, and on another occasion of having represented someone who served a 12-year sentence before ultimately the truth emerged that he was in no way culpable.
416
The noble Earl says that such provisions have worked well in Northern Ireland, but largely, it seems, from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, said, those were cases which did not involve juries. I am not aware that more defendants in Northern Ireland give evidence than did before, that more of those who do not give evidence are convicted, or that the provisions have had any effect at all in reducing the crime rate. The real risk, if these provisions are enacted, is that more innocent people may be convicted. And that risk is too great a risk to take.
The legal profession to which I belong is notoriously conservative but the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society are united in their disapproval of these proposals. I hope very much that the Government will think again as the Bill goes through this House. If they do not, unhappily, the noble Earl, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will not be with me when I sit in the cell with the next person who is convicted as a result of these changes, and it will be I who will have to explain the actions that this House has taken.
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address your Lordships' House for the first time, and I do so with considerable trepidation. I thank all those Members and officers of the House who have given me help and encouragement in the past few days. I wish to address the subject of the treatment of younger offenders and in particular to pose the question: what is the aim? There are many catch-phrases. Is it punishment, rehabilitation, reparation, short, sharp shock, social work, molly coddling, protection, victimisation, or what?
That is a question I have posed regularly to groups of young offenders aged between 16 and 21, at a Scottish young offenders' institution I visit very regularly as a member of the visiting committee. There is considerable confusion in their minds, and also in the minds of some of the young offenders' institution staff. When asked what is the purpose of the young offenders' institution, they will typically reply that it is punishment, to "keep us off the streets" or "to teach us a lesson". When asked, "How does the punishment work?", they will reply "It doesn't". When pressed the replies tend to be, "It scares you at first", "You make good intentions", and "You forget it all as soon as you are back home". Ultimately, the discussion is drawn to the subject of rehabilitation, personal change and giving up offending. It is established that personal change can only happen if the individual wants it; in other words, it must be with the individual's consent and, frankly, at the individual's own instigation. Other people can join in the process to enable and facilitate the change.
In view of the prison culture of "us and them" there is no obvious rush to discuss a future life-style with the staff. While the treatment of offenders is about examining the recent past, planning the future and enabling offenders to become ex-offenders, I have to recognise that such considerations are not the major

417
priority of the recently imprisoned young offender. Finding out how the system works and who to watch out for are the greater priorities in day-to-day prison life.
Prison and young offender institution staff are keenly aware that bullying puts far more fear in the lives of many young offenders and prisoners than anything the prison regime may impose. Speaking with young men on informal protection and hearing about their insecurities and fears about the hostile, dominating actions of other young offenders quickly brings me to the question, "Is that what the state intended"? I do not think so.
The decision to take away someone's liberty is taken for a number of reasons—punishment by loss of liberty, to draw vigorous attention to the offending behaviour, to vindicate the victim, to protect other potential victims, to raise the offender's awareness of his or her effect on victims, to arrange a period of self-reflection and to arrange an opportunity for negotiation with the prison staff of all grades and departments about the future. But that decision often misfires. The main result can be a state of considerable resentment and embitterment against the state, society and, ultimately, past and present victims.
So what is the answer? For those whose background is stable and structured, the proverb about going off the rails is appropriate. Those people know where they have gone wrong. A quick spell inside will nudge them firmly back onto tracks that they know. For the majority the issue is not so clear. Their lives are far more chaotic.
Around 1970 I was a social work student. I spent three weeks on the staff of a Scottish borstal where I caught up with the final days of staff recruited to the Scottish Borstal Service with a commitment to promoting change and after-care. A subsequent career in social work brought me into contact with the Scottish Prison Service and prisoners, as well as with probation orders, after care licences, community service orders and an intensive probation project.
Around 1980 I was a prison social worker in a Scottish prison. There I met an unhelpful "have nothing to do with the prisoners" attitude among some staff. That came as a considerable professional shock. Fortunately, subsequent contact with the Scottish Prison Service in the 1980s and 1990s proves that there has been a positive improvement in the official staff attitude towards prisoners. I wish to claim that the standards and attitudes of the old borstal service have at last pervaded prison staff thinking in the main.
I believe that the treatment of offenders is about talking with offenders about what they are doing to themselves and to others, their families and their victims, and encouraging the adoption of new attitudes. In a prison setting, that is not an obvious first step. The prison has to be run on a day-to-day basis. I acknowledge that for the staff it is a major achievement to lock up after a peaceful day the same number of prisoners as were unlocked in the morning. However, discussions about the future need to take place mainly informally, sometimes in more structured settings, and in group sessions. High quality, intelligent staff with much common sense are needed. The service conditions of the Scottish Prison Service are likely to attract
418
suitable staff. Proposals to employ private contractors raise questions about staff conditions and hence future quality of staff. Unless the prison regime includes the opportunity to discuss the future—obviously on a voluntary basis, for not all wish to do that—then a great opportunity has been missed.
When it comes to very young offenders, I am concerned on three counts. In the secure training orders, designed for England and Wales, there seems to be no flexibility in the length of imprisonment and hence less incentive to grasp the ideas being offered by the secure training centre staff. Secondly, I am unhappy about the concept of imprisonment rather than care for 12 to 14 year-olds, especially as the five centres might be a long way from home in most cases. Thirdly, and finally, removal from the community de-focuses the vital discussion about the need to find an acceptable lifestyle in the home community.
5.34 p.m.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate, on behalf of everyone in the House, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on his maiden speech. Since it is not so long ago that I underwent the same experience, I speak with a great deal of fellow feeling. The topic on which he touched is not one on which I am about to address your Lordships, but I recognise that it is central to some of the most important provisions of the Bill. I am sure that I speak for us all when I say that we look forward to hearing further contributions from him, which I am sure will be equally valuable, before the Bill leaves the House.
When I last addressed your Lordships on this topic, I was a maiden speaker constrained by the convention which requires that I should avoid being controversial. I am not so constrained this afternoon; and I shall be outspokenly critical about the clauses in the Bill which bear on the so-called right of silence and the inferences which can be drawn from silence by an accused. However, I wish to emphasise that I make those remarks within the context of entire agreement on the objective in view: that all those defendants, and only those defendants, whose guilt is beyond reasonable doubt should be convicted in a criminal trial of the offence with which they have been charged.
I also wish to make clear that I welcome and recognise the extent to which Ministers have responded to some of the most important of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, notably the establishment of a new independent Criminal Cases Review Authority. Although Ministers have been criticised for the time that they have taken in coming forward with their response, I think that they were quite right to do so. These are important changes. It is important to consult. It is important to get the details right. But that, of course, merely highlights the haste and the lack of consultation with which the provisions in this Bill which I am about to criticise have come before your Lordships. They have come before your Lordships not only against the recommendation by a majority of nine to two of the recent Royal Commission, but against the unanimous recommendation of the

419
previous Royal Commission which dealt, as I believe most people thought at that time, definitively with the earlier arguments of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and, as noble Lords have just heard, against the advice of the Bar Council, the Criminal Law Bar Association and the Law Society.
We are told that Ministers intend to bring into operation in England and Wales the provisions of the Northern Ireland order which has been in force since 1988. But that is a very different jurisdiction, facing a different set of problems. It is a different set of problems from that which obtains in this jurisdiction and which that order was designed to address. In the so-called Diplock courts, the judge has to give a reasoned judgment from which there is an automatic right of appeal. That is a fundamental difference from what takes place and, as I understand it, will continue to take place in jury trials. As I understand it, there is no intention whatever on the part of Ministers to introduce Diplock courts into the jurisdiction in England and Wales. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to try to assess the effects of the Northern Ireland order which are, at best, ambiguous. I am confident in saying that although it may not be possible to show that the provisions have had an adverse effect, there is certainly no evidence which demonstrates that they have had a positive effect either on the detection or the conviction rates for terrorist offences; and it is terrorist offences which that order was brought in to deal with.
Your Lordships need to consider what will be the effects of introducing those provisions into the existing criminal justice system of England and Wales. There will be two effects. I predict what they will be with a confidence based not merely on the extensive deliberation within the Royal Commission on these matters, but on discussions which I have had since the provisions of the Bill were made public with a wide range of practitioners: criminal solicitors; practising members of the Bar who both prosecute and defend; and serving members of the judiciary who try crime.
The first effect which will inevitably follow from the provisions as they stand is that there will be a significantly increased risk of wrongful convictions. The measures do not merely conflict with, but seek to put into reverse the main thrust of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which was introduced on the basis of the recommendations of the last Royal Commission. Despite the initial misgivings of a certain number of experienced police officers, that Act, once it had been in force for several years, was welcomed by all the senior police officers who gave evidence to us in the Royal Commission. They welcomed it not only because it improved protection for the suspect, but because it diminished the risk that the honest police officer's evidence would be wrongly discredited. It brings the formal interview into the police station where that interview can be recorded on tape and where the suspect has ample opportunity to ask for and obtain legal advice. If there is a criticism to be made, it is that the opportunity is not as effective in practice as it ought to be.
420
I recognise that there has been a major improvement in the professionalism with which police officers conduct their duties, and in particular interviewing officers in the police station, since the time of the last Royal Commission. From what we have heard as regards the latest Royal Commission, I am satisfied that the police are entitled to claim that they have made and are still making well directed efforts in that direction. But if any noble Lords think that the problem of police malpractice has been altogether eliminated, I have to say to them that they are not living in the real world.
These measures will significantly expose frightened, vulnerable, inadequate and confused suspects to—it may not even be deliberate malpractice—undue and improper pressures which will risk wrongful convictions of the kind that still go on in a minority of cases, even now that the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act have been in force for many years. Such cases exist, they are very disturbing indeed and it is still more disturbing that we should be confronting the possibility of measures which will increase the number yet further.
The other consequence of the measures is that what will happen, or perhaps I should say what will not happen, is that although the time and therefore the cost of criminal trials will be significantly extended, that will not achieve a higher rate of convictions of the experienced or, if you like, professional criminals who would not be convicted on the strength of the evidence in any case. The reason is that they will continue to remain silent and will be advised by their solicitors to remain silent. Incidentally, that is exactly what has happened in Scotland—as we on the Royal Commission discovered—where there is a moral to be drawn which is much more directly relevant than any moral which could be drawn from Northern Ireland. What is more, their counsel in defending such criminals, will have a field day with legal argument over the reasonableness of the inferences which the prosecution will seek to draw.
When it comes to the judge's summing up, judges will be, as they will have to be, scrupulous—unless they want to be taken straight to the Court of Appeal—in conveying to the jury that silence in and of itself must not be taken as proof of guilt.
There are some estimates—I have not gone into them in detail and therefore cannot vouch for them—as to what the additional annual expense will be in terms of time and cost of criminal trials, to little or, I think, no effect. The lowest such estimate which I have seen is £36 million per annum; the highest is in the region of £60 million per annum.
I well understand the reasons for which the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation have come out strongly in support of the measures. I have great sympathy with the honest police officer who is confronted with a "no comment" interview—that, of course, is putting it politely—when he has confronted some difficult, dangerous and unpleasant people with strong prima facie evidence that they have committed a serious offence. But I have to say that I do not believe that the police who advocate these measures have fully thought through their consequences. That is what must concern us before the Bill leaves

421
the House. The officers will still receive a refusal to answer questions from the experienced professional criminals. Not only will those criminals receive that advice from their solicitors, but their solicitors will be prepared, if necessary, to waive legal privilege so that the jury will know the defendant was advised to say nothing, despite the revised caution and what goes with it.
The next thing that will happen is that police officers will get more—indeed, a lot more—of precisely the kind of cross-examination by defence counsel which they understandably resent. Defence counsel will run police witnesses uphill and down and then back up again in order to attempt to discredit their evidence in the minds of the jury. They will have ample scope for doing so because of the extent to which the measures reverse the whole thrust of PACE and re-open all the contentious questions which will now arise if the provisions go through about the allegations of so-called car seat confessions on the scenic route and allegations of inducements which were improperly or will be said to have been improperly put to the suspect by the police officer. By the time the case is before the jury, it will turn out that if the prima facie case is not strong enough, refusal to answer questions will not clinch it. If the prima facie evidence is good, a conviction will be obtained despite the defendant's silence.
Let me emphasise that it is not as though no change were necessary; a change is necessary, but not this one. The necessary change is that proposed in the report of the Royal Commission. If I may, I shall read out to your Lordships Recommendation No. 83 which is made by a majority of 10 to 1, and it reads as follows:
"it is when but only when the prosecution case has been fully disclosed that defendants should be required to offer an answer to the charges made against them at the risk of adverse comment at trial on any new defence they then disclose or any departure from the defence which they previously disclosed".
That recommendation, if implemented, will have three great merits. It will remove the obligation of disclosure, so far as it goes, away from the police station with all the attendant risks. That obligation will be deferred until the defendant has had ample opportunity to obtain legal advice and knows exactly what it is that the Crown is alleging against him or her. The recommendation will also deal with the real problem about which the police are quite right to be concerned of the so-called "ambush" defence; that is, a totally spurious and fabricated defence which is held back until the very last moment, with the deliberate intention of wrong-footing the prosecution and misleading the jury. It is not a precise term; on a broad definition such as the police are naturally inclined to apply, there may be as many as one in five cases. I am talking about 100,000 cases tried before a jury in any year where the defence could be plausibly labelled an ambush. On the most conservative estimate, there is one in 10. It is a real problem, it needs to be addressed and the Royal Commission's recommendation addresses it directly.
Finally, under the regime which the Royal Commission proposed, the defendant can stay silent. There is, on any possible argument, no threat to the burden and standard of proof, no risk of a humiliating reversal in the European Court, if that risk needs to be
422
taken seriously. I am not competent to offer an opinion about that. However, what will happen is that if the defendant has refused the opportunity to disclose the defence on pain of adverse comment, as proposed, then at the end of the day the existing direction which I am about to read to the House—a specimen direction which has been drafted by the Judicial Studies Board—will amply cover the case. Under that or some equivalent direction the jury will be told that the defendant's silence, although not in itself to be taken as proof of guilt,
"means that there is no evidence from the defendant to undermine, contradict, or explain the evidence put before you by the prosecution".
That is right. It is the position that ought to be maintained. I urge the Government, with whatever authority I can command on the basis of having chaired the recent Royal Commission: take back these clauses and reconsider them; and instead, implement Recommendation No. 83 of the Royal Commission.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, the noble Viscount spoke with distinction and authority of his recent experience as the very distinguished chairman of the Royal Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke with the authority of coming, as she said, hot from the coalface—straight from practising in the courts. My authority is more ancient. It is based on 40 years of practice. In my early years I spent a lot of time in the criminal courts defending, often in capital murder cases. It was only after I became a law officer and leader of the circuit that I did prosecutions. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis here, since it is one of my hobby-horses, that a sad characteristic of the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General is that conditions are so altered, the demand has become so great, that they are now rarely in court and are sucked deeper and deeper into the maw of Whitehall. It has removed them almost wholly from the courts. I was glad to see the Solicitor-General prosecuting at the end of last year.
Compared with the days when I had experience of defending, the change now is enormous—not in any procedure of the courts but in the sheer number of crimes that are committed and cases that have to be tried. That change is illustrated by the fact that when I practised at the Central Criminal Court there were four judges. Now, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will know, there are 20 or more. At that time judges had long holidays. Now, I believe, they sit continuously. The jurors used to be told: "There is no need to retire. If the front row will turn to the back row, perhaps you will be able to reach a verdict". The word of a police officer was invariably accepted. I was once insulted, indeed almost assaulted, at a London club because in a murder case that had received great publicity I had attacked the veracity of the police officer in charge of the case. Such was the ethos of those times. It is very, very different now. Of course it led some police officers to exaggeration, then to invention, in order to obtain convictions—with terrible consequences not only for individuals but for the law and so for the whole of society.

423
Perhaps I may trouble noble Lords with the experience that I had for many years in the early 1960s, at the time of Rab Butler onwards, when I was often the front-bench speaker at party conferences, resisting demands from the so-called hangers and floggers who used to appear regularly at party conferences. I used to have to speak in opposition from the front bench. In Parliament, I took part in debate after debate on criminal procedure and penal policy.
All the time criminal statistics mounted. In 1991 the British Crime Survey showed that there had been 15 million crimes. There was some relief, I believe, in the last year, but not in crimes of violence, rapes or robbery.
It is clear that what has been said and done has not even contained the problem let alone got on top of it. The record is one of failure. All who have played any part in public life, all who have been in government, and all those academics who have lectured, written and held seminars must take responsibility. The policy has failed. It has not got over the problem of the increase in crime year by year. It is common to all Western society and is now exported to the East, where people have to face the Scylla of tyranny or the Charybdis of drugs, gangs and crime. Some excuse the situation by saying that it results from people being deprived and disadvantaged. But in my youth, when there was greater hardship and greater deprivation, there was less crime.
The problem goes deeper. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—and I have to include Mr. Wilson, whom he quoted—that it is the result of something inherent in our society. There is less deference to authority. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing. But there is also less kindness to the old and the weak. Society is so much more brutal; it is coarser and crueller. We see the viciousness that is demonstrated by a small percentage of people within our society who are responsible for crime.
The problem certainly cannot be cured by altering the procedure in the criminal courts. No one pretends that it can. It was a privilege to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, whose courage and integrity I witnessed at first hand. When he called me to the Bar of Northern Ireland, there was a thumping of explosions going on in the streets outside.
Who would be a judge nowadays? If you sentence a person to prison, the libertarians and experts get up and tell you that prison corrupts and that too many people are sent to prison in the United Kingdom. If, as a judge, you do not sentence a person to prison you are pilloried by the press for allowing criminals literally to get away with murder. Judges are blamed because some of them and some juries have accepted what appeared to be expert testimony from a reputable scientist and the evidence of apparently honest, respectable witnesses. How do you blame the judges and the juries who believed those witnesses when that evidence was tendered to them? Other people are to blame—you can certainly blame others—but not the judges. From time to time, indeed from time immemorial, courts have been, and will always be, deceived by plausible liars and faulty experts, with terrible consequences for everybody.
424
Our duty in Parliament is to provide a system of criminal justice which strikes a proper balance. That is the key, is it not?—the proper balance between the public interest that is involved in the acquitting of those who are not proven guilty (the predominant consideration) but also in convicting the guilty. Failure to convict can arouse citizens to take the law into their own hands. The conviction of the guilty is very important in the public interest.
It seems to me that this Bill makes several important and welcome changes based, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, pointed out, on common sense. It introduces new powers to deal with children and young offenders. I say with great respect—and I listened with great pleasure, so well spoken, thought out and presented was the maiden speech of the noble Earl on the Benches opposite—that if a court is impotent to deal with the kind of cases that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, illustrated, it is a nonsense. It is asking for trouble. One has to deal with them somehow. Therefore it seems to me common sense that this Bill has introduced measures which can deal more appropriately and sensibly with those young offenders.
I turn to the question of bail. As parliamentarians we have permitted those who are on bail to sit on juries. This Bill takes that right away. Let us just think about it. We let that happen. Then we say: "There is a terrible amount of crime. Whose responsibility is it? It's somebody else's. It's the responsibility of the judges, or the Home Secretary". It is our responsibility; we let it happen.
In this Bill there is the creation, rightly, of a new offence of intimidating juries and witnesses. That is something more modern which happened after my time. Perhaps it was happening in the time of some noble Lords opposite. Apparently it is quite common now at the Central Criminal Court and certainly in large cities.
There are demands by the public for better control of public order in respect of travellers, ravers, squatters and those interfering with lawful activities, and demands for stop and search powers. Are they not common sense powers? Ought they not to be provided for the protection of ordinary citizens?.
Finally, I come to the great matter of what has been called the right of silence. It is not, certainly so far as I am concerned, a matter of political expediency. I read with interest and care the representations of the Bar Council, whose chairman I had the honour to be 19 years ago. It is forthright against any change, although it has some alternatives which may be well worth later consideration. Those are former colleagues whose judgment I greatly respect. I must confess that more than with any judge, more than with any Minister and more than with some colleagues on these Benches, I am in sympathy with my former colleagues of the Bar Council. I am sad to differ from them, but I do differ.
I anticipate that old friends like the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, my successor as Chairman of the Bar Council, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will disagree with me and express that disagreement. Lord Melbourne once said about a proposal in some Bill:

425
"All the clever fellows were for it and all the damned fools were against it. And, egad, the damned fools were right". In this matter I put myself among the damned fools. I pray in aid the fact that there was a minority about the right to silence in the Royal Commission. There were two. We are all the damned fools.
I have never understood how in modern times it is reasonable for a judge or an advocate not to be allowed to comment on the lack of explanation. I cannot see why a judge or an advocate should be banned from commenting on the fact that the person best able to help the jury in explaining his or her presence at a certain place or his possession of substances or instruments chooses to stay silent. Why cannot they comment about that? I am usually in total agreement with and have much respect for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, a former colleague in my profession. He talked about the trauma of arrest and questioning. So be it—but surely it is a different matter later.
To many observers, the rule in modern times seems almost absurd. To the casual person it is absurd that a court cannot comment or a jury raise an inference when a person declines to answer or provide explanation. There may be an explanation for an earlier refusal to answer. If there is, so be it. Let it be given.
It is said that some 6 to 10 per cent. of all suspects outside the metropolitan area and 14 to 16 per cent. inside the metropolitan area refuse to explain. I suggest that they may be the most sophisticated and experienced criminals, not the weak and the vulnerable. Those who know the ropes know how to take advantage of the system. English criminal trials have often been criticised as being too much like a game. Here is a rule of the game which surely is no longer reasonable. It is about time that it was changed.
I accept that it will call for vigorous supervision of methods of questioning, as well as tape recording and control by superiors to ensure that there is no oppressive or threatening questioning. It will require a new form of caution. But it might perhaps have the following effect. Some of the police of whom the noble Viscount spoke might have had a perception that there was an imbalance in the criminal justice procedure system which tempted them and led them to exaggerate and invent. That is no excuse but it may be a reason. That imbalance may be a reason for them thinking in that way. Perhaps now they will see that there is no reason to perceive the situation as they did. There never has been any excuse, but now they will see that there is no reason.
I shall listen with great care to what I forecast will be most interesting debates on these clauses. I believe that this is a rightful trend. The Government are right to have so acted and they are right to have introduced the other measures in this Bill which I believe, properly and fairly applied, will help judges and citizens who sit on juries in the administration of criminal justice.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, I also am a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland. I was admitted by the successor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry. Therefore, on a personal basis perhaps I may say
426
that the response of your Lordships' House to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, was an entirely accurate reflection of the affectionate regard in which he is held and the deep respect which he has engendered in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
I wrote down the words of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that "protecting the public from crime is an essential responsibility of government". I entirely agree. If that is a criterion, for the past few years there has been no overwhelming success. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that the criminal justice system is simply a part, a mechanism, which cannot solve the causes of crime nor protect society from criminals. To that extent we are only partially dealing with an aspect of the social mechanism. I suggest that we should ponder on why the Bill was introduced in the first place. In substantial part it was seen as a necessary and inevitable consequence of the great work done by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and his commission, which was properly described as a master work.
The commission itself was set up entirely because of a series of gross miscarriages of justice. What was the effect of those miscarriages? In some cases it left the innocent in prison for years. I suppose that that is the most cruel act that a state can inflict upon its citizens. Of equal importance, if not greater, in those cases it left the guilty undetected and unpunished. It caused endless continuing distress to victims and their relatives, as we saw last week. Their grief, distress and bereavement were reinvigorated when time should have begun its healing process, in part at least. It is in that context and, in particular, the overarching comment that those miscarriages infected the whole system that we need to attend to the detail of this Bill in due time.
A short time ago we had a debate when the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, among other noble Lords were present. They criticised vigorously the inquisitorial aspects of Department of Trade investigations. Their criticism, which I regard in part at least as valid, was that such an inquisition was unfair. The important point that underlies the informed voice of reason of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, is that we do not live in an authoritarian country nor ought we to slide into such a state. We once had an inquisition in this country. It was centuries ago. We did not care for it. As my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, the Star Chamber was not to our modern taste, and a monarch lost his head because of it.
We do not wish to live in an authoritarian country. Our tradition is not that of mainland Europe where the state is overweaning in its power. It may be helpful to study the composition of the Royal Commission. It was not made up of those born yesterday. There was a Permanent Secretary from the Northern Ireland Office; there was a former senior police officer—people I respectfully suggest who knew something of what they were doing.
It is not a question, as mistakenly suggested, of whether or not an accused person (presumed to be innocent in our system) can always remain silent. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, read out a model.

427
direction. For those who have not imposed upon themselves the disagreeable duty of reading his recommendations at the back of the report, he read out what I suggest is the perfectly reasonable compromise that when the prosecution case is known, when the defendant has legal advice, and when he has had the opportunity to reflect, it is not unreasonable to expect him to set up the basis of his case. Some noble Lords will know that my response to that recommendation is that it is entirely reasonable. It casts an acceptable balance between state oppression and the rights of the individual.
It needs to be remembered that the state prosecution system in this country is extremely powerful. It possesses resources, personnel and access to expert material which defendants, limping along with a solicitor and counsel on legal aid, often do not. If the right of silence in the police station is done away with, it will be a significant attack upon the quality and nature of the social life of this country, which is infinitely more subtle and delicate than those who pretend otherwise would have us believe.
Other questions arise such as those relating to secure training centres. We are here considering the incarceration of children. Again, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there are limited circumstances where children may need to be incarcerated. But let us not forget what we are doing. We are speaking of children of 12. Where are the centres to be located? A significant reason why children commit crime is because they lack the benefits that most of us here have had. When one sends a child of 12 or 13 to a secure training institution 200 miles from where he normally lives, at a stroke one has set up a criminal for further criminal life. He is deprived of home, community and society—the benefits that we had and he lacked.
How is a parent on income support 200 miles away to maintain any contact with the child? It is not a simple remedy. Three examples were given; one by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and two by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Of course they are headline examples. That is a problem. But we must remember that we are living in 1994 and not 1894. Even in 1894 some questions would have been raised regarding these draconian remedies for young children. In my judgment and experience they are necessary in only a small number of cases. The cost is enormous.
There are other matters on which I shall touch briefly, if I may, contained in that masterly report. Interesting questions arise in relation to the training of the judiciary and the expansion of the role of the Judicial Studies Board. It is extremely important. It is grossly under-resourced and underfunded. Enormous work was done by the former chairman Lord Justice Farquharson and is now being done by the present chairman Lord Justice Henry. They want another £1 million or £2 million per year to train judges to monitor judicial performance and to carry out the more efficient organisation of the judiciary. That needs to be compared
428
with the sums mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, in regard to the waste that will come about if the proposals are rushed through.
Other questions arise. Again, it may be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will agree with me that bail should be a judicial decision based on judicial discretion. I am grateful to see the noble and learned Lord nodding. In some circumstances in the Bill that discretion is done away with. If someone has been convicted of a specific type of offence, he will be automatically refused bail by statute. That cannot be right. It is for judges to take away the liberty of people in this country, albeit with guidelines set out by the legislature, and not for the diktat of an Act of Parliament.
Those are fairly random thoughts with which I have taken up 10 minutes of your Lordships' time, for which I apologise. I suggest that in due time the question will be whether we can derive, see or describe a reasoned approach to the problems which underly and inform the Bill or whether it is better described in many ways as rather a rag-bag, lacking coherence, informed research or valid underpinning. I regret to say that if the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, particularly on the right of silence, are ignored or spurned, the conclusion must be that what has informed this Bill will be something less worthy than should inform it.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I regret that I too shall concentrate on Clauses 33 to 35 and I must start by apologising that, for reasons which may be apparent, I am not sure that I shall be able to sustain my presence to the end of this marathon debate.
After the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, it is difficult to feel that there is anything else to be said, particularly from an old volcano such as myself who has spent a professional lifetime in the criminal law and whose embers were almost dormant until, on seeing the clauses in the Bill, they were again fanned into the fire of protestation.
At the Second Reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill a number of noble Lords of distinction in all parts of the House expressed their profound concern at the constitutional implication of eroding the independence of chief constables, magistrates and their clerks. I hope that there will be similar cross-party concern during the passage of this Bill for the basic constitutional rights, not of the powerful but of the ordinary citizen—rights which these clauses seriously undermine if not destroy.
Let us be clear straight away. The clauses do not limit, adjust or amend; they abolish the right of silence. They shift the onus of proof, introduce an inquisitorial element into and change the whole ethos of the English criminal law. The right of silence is not the right not to be tortured and racked into speech; it is the right of the citizen, when accused of any crime, to decline to answer the accusation until he freely wishes to do so without suffering any adverse consequence. As the Runciman Commission put it, it is the prohibition against adverse

429
comment. That is the right of silence as it was addressed in depth and length by both Royal Commissions and which both said should be respected and maintained.
For the Secretary of State and the noble Earl to claim that the citizen still has the right to be silent—which is not the right of silence—and that he will not be penalised for being so, that the prosecution still has to prove its case and that therefore these clauses merely get rid of some archaic rule of evidence is, if I may say so, sophistry. It is misleading and it cheapens debate, as anyone can see who looks at the proceedings over the Bill in another place. It is to use the oldest forensic trick: if you seek a revolutionary change dress it up as an insignificant procedural alteration.
Under the Bill—let us face what it says—silence when confronted by an official at any time and anywhere can provide evidence of guilt. Not to offer oneself in court for cross-examination, to refuse to take up the Prayer Book to be sworn, to choose not to testify, can provide evidence of guilt. Once forced into the witness box, failure to answer any question put by prosecutor, judge or magistrate in any criminal court in this country can provide further evidence of guilt. So it is clear—an inquisitorial process is to be erected across the criminal spectrum. The common law rights of the individual are swept away and the citizen is deprived of his only ultimate constitutional safeguard against oppression or malpractice, which is the right to say, "No. I will not be bullied, threatened, pressurised or coerced. If you have a case, prove it. I say nothing until I choose to do so". That is the same right as any other citizen has in court to say, "I will not answer any question which might incriminate me", the privilege against self incrimination; or the same right, for instance, as any householder has when he shuts the door against any state official who wishes to come in unless armed with a warrant. Yet, as is said so glibly, any innocent person would gladly answer any question and no doubt welcome the police into his house, if he is innocent, for them to turn it over and search for stolen property. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, that it is not the comment that matters. It is the inference of guilt that matters. That is the heart of the matter.
As we have already heard, these clauses ride roughshod over the reasoned recommendations of two Royal Commissions and—which has not been mentioned—of the Home Office's own working party and even the minority of two in the Runciman Commission. They have been condemned by every professional body whose members operate the criminal courts. They are, in sum, alien to our system of justice. When Lord Devlin read of these proposals in the now discredited 11th report in 1972, he said:
"They are as startling as if in a civil procedure the defendant, on receipt of a writ, was required to call at the office of the plaintiff's solicitors, tell them his defence to an undisclosed statement of claim and then submit to being questioned upon it".
Because it has been claimed, even by some civil lawyers in this House, that the right of silence is no more than an archaic technicality, let me quote some authorities that cannot be gainsaid. The Phillips
430
Commission—there is no need to mention the Runciman Commission as we have heard of that from the noble Viscount himself—said:.
"The issue involved the balance between the interests of the community in bringing offenders to justice and the rights and liberties of persons suspected of crime".
The commission made it clear that the 11th report entirely ignored this balance, and it rejected the proposals. It rightly recorded:
"The formidable body of lay and professional opinion that stood aghast at its proposals pointed to the fact that the right of silence formed a vital issue in the whole constitutional relationship in a free society between the individual and the state".
It said that the right of silence derives from two factors: the onus of proof and the presumption of innocence; and, on the other side, freedom from self-incrimination. I quote again:
"If a subject has a right then he should be made aware of it, able to exercise it or waive it as he wishes".
Historically, the caution has been the method of reminding the citizen of his common law right. It arose back in 1845,—not, as one noble and learned Lord told us the other day, from some aberration of the judges after the defendant was allowed to testify in 1898. When the role of justices changed from inquisitional to judicial, on committing art accused for trial a caution had to be given by them to the accused, telling him that he need not say anything—he had nothing to fear from threats or inducements but if he chose to speak it would be recorded and sent to the court of trial. It was of this situation that Bentham spoke. It had nothing to do with extra-judicial interrogation. When given the right to testify, the caution was soon incorporated into the judges' rules and only the other day it was incorporated again into PACE. Now, in this Bill, after 150 years, the caution apparently is simply to be a threat or art inducement to speak and no longer the proclamation of the suspect's rights at common law.
It was as long ago as 1820 that Lord Chancellor Eldon said:
"No man can be called on to incriminate himself by words or silence. It is one of the most sacred principles of the law".
Lord Chief Justice Parker said in 1966:
"Every citizen has a moral or social duty to help the police but no legal duty: indeed the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority".
One is entitled to ask: does the common law no longer command respect in the higher judiciary?
In 1988 the Home Office working party, set up by Mr. Hurd to recommend not whether, but how, to introduce comment on a suspect's silence. reported to the Home Secretary:
"Not a single witness went so far as to suggest that silence could ever be proof of guilt. That would mean the burden of proof shifting and that we are completely opposed to".
That advice is discarded by the Secretary of State. Is that arrogance, or is it that the senior lawyers in this administration have no experience of the criminal law in England and Wales, as we saw so clearly illustrated in the shambles of Matrix Churchill?
Finally, your Lordships may not know that Mr. Amlot is the last senior Treasury counsel at the Central Criminal Court. He is the most senior prosecutor in this country, with the duty of advising the Attorney General on matters of criminal law. As noble Lords may have

431
seen, he wrote to The Times condemning these clauses and powers which were being given to prosecutors to make it more easy for them to convict what Mr. Howard always calls "the criminals" whom they prosecute. Why should the chief prosecutor in this country, Mr. Amlot, take that view? Because it undermines the very basis of the law which he seeks daily to uphold. He will not stand by to see the defendants whom he prosecutes deprived of their constitutional rights. Are we in this House to ignore the chief prosecutor's views as well as those of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman?.
All common law rules of evidence fetter the prosecution and the police and give what is called an "artifical protection" to the suspect. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that, even where evidence is logically probative, we do not allow previous convictions, hearsay evidence, prejudicial evidence, the tapping of telephones, the bugging of rooms or the entering of homes. Each of these freedoms can be legislated away in special circumstances but each represents the citizen's rights, as does the presumption of innocence.
Apart from the basic principle of these clauses, the real mischief is that they provide the interrogator and the prosecutor with a new weapon—namely, the suspect's silence—for the application of pressure, and a power which is wide open to abuse. It is a power that our most senior prosecutor finds unacceptable and which removes the suspect's free choice. It seeks to legitimise a form of pressure and coercion against which, over the centuries, the common law has vigorously protected the citizen ever since the inquisitorial system of the 17th century was replaced.
I very much agree with the noble Viscount. These measures will take us straight back to the mischief of the old "sus" laws, to the disputes over police verbals, added to which there will now be the police non-verbals of not recording what defendants have said. It is a staggering irony that the Government's central response to the Runciman Commission, which was set up to ensure the ending of this terrible series of miscarriages of justice caused overwhelmingly by the making of false confessions, is to give the police the very power which the commission rejected as making more likely the conviction of the innocent. It is because false statements come from pressure and inducement that the common law has always demanded that all statements by defendants must be proved to be voluntary if they are to be admissible.
It is plain that the clauses follow the views of the minority in Runciman, but that is false because they would only allow comment with stringent statutory safeguards—that is to say, tape recordings, videos, the caution, legal representation, judicial ruling and warning to the jury. It is suggested that it is plain that the clauses are necessary to meet ambush defences made by hardened criminals who exploit the system. That is false because extensive research was done by both Royal Commissions. They both found no evidence to establish that criminals invoked the right of silence disproportionately to the mass of ordinary offenders or that silence led to any increased rate of acquittal.
432
I myself have dealt with hundreds of hardened criminals. I have yet to discover—and I always ask those who make the observation—what "exploitation" means. The innocent and the guilty are equally entitled to the same protection of the law. If offences are wrongly pinned, as they sometimes are, on men with long records or on members of the IRA, a conviction is still a disgraceful miscarriage of justice.
What is clear from the last devastating report of Justice, to which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, will refer, is the extent to which the police, alas, exploit the gaps in PACE, causing Justice to declare that confession evidence is now so inherently unsafe that these clauses must simply not be allowed to stand as part of the Bill.
There was a day when the highest court in the land regarded the protection of individual freedom and the liberty of the subject as its overriding concern. It is rare today, I fear, to hear the words "human rights" in this Chamber. Let me end with the words of the last great criminal judge to sit on the Cross-Benches and whose voice most certainly would have been heard in this debate if he were still alive to speak. They are the words of Lord Devlin, speaking in a murder case where the defendant submitted that the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden of proof and who gave no evidence himself. Lord Devlin said:
"So great is and always has been our horror that a man might be questioned, forced to speak and perhaps condemn himself out of his own mouth, that we grant to everyone, suspected or accused of crime, at the beginning, at every stage and until the very end the right to say 'Ask me no question. I shall answer none. Prove your case'".
As we know, in that case the defendant was acquitted. But, with these clauses, the judge would have had to say to the jury, "Maybe the prosecution is weak, but in the defendant's silence you can find the evidence of guilt of murder which they have found so difficult to prove". Of all the countries in the world which have the common law system, only Northern Ireland and Singapore have gone down this road. The Government ask us to join them. I ask this House: is that really what we here wish to see?.
6.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I am a pastoral Bishop in a West Midlands diocese. I confess that after listening to this debate by leaders and those very experienced in the criminal justice system, I find myself bemused and unsure as to the line that I should follow. Nevertheless I believe I speak on behalf of both sides of this House in welcoming at one level the notes of realism which we have heard. We have had realism about the fact that crime is increasing; realism from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that only the expulsive power of a greater affection which is the vision of a human life, can supplant crime and is ultimately the answer. At the same time we have the realism which we heard from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Rawlinson and Lord Hailsham of the melancholy fact of the drop in the number of convictions of which we can be confident. We have

433
heard of the reality of evil. Several speakers have emphasised the need for practical actions to deal with the situation which this Bill is seeking to address.
However, I submit that because of the realism of the situation and the rise in crime, we must be all the more certain that the actions that we choose are the best possible and can be proven, in advance, to be effective. I have to say that after listening to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and listening also to prison chaplains in my own diocese—in which we have more penal institutions than any other diocese of our Church—and to many people from parishes around the cathedral city where I live who regularly visit a young offenders' institution, I am in grave doubt, despite all the practical pressures, as to whether the introduction of expensive prisons to deal with a small minority of very difficult children in our society will be effective.
We know, I think, that it is out of line with a great deal of advice already given to the Government. Your Lordships will be hearing more from the Bishop on these Benches appointed to have a concern for prisons, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, when the Bill goes into Committee. Further, having listened to distinguished legal authorities discussing the whole question of this ancient right to silence, I have to say that I am still very undecided in my own mind. We shall of course continue to listen carefully to both sides of this debate, especially to noble and learned Lords with long experience of the courts; but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I suggest to your Lordships that the burden of proof rests on those who are arguing for change in this matter. I submit that that proof has not yet been provided.
I should like now to touch on other clauses of the Bill, and in particular the proposals in relation to gypsies. I have to report to your Lordships that many people within the Churches are very uneasy with the Bill's proposals that affect gypsies and travellers, and particularly the proposal to repeal the duty on local authorities to provide sites for gypsies. The 1968 Act was, albeit slowly, making more public sites available. Without that, there is little chance of further public provision, and without preferential planning permission there is also little chance of private sites. It seems more likely that gypsies are to be forced to camp illegally, with all the consequences for public order which the Bill attempts to avoid.
The Bill seems to many experienced organisations to allow scope for harassment and discrimination. It may quickly criminalise many gypsies and will enable the police to seize their vehicles, which are also their homes, if they resist being moved on. I hope that your Lordships will look long and hard at these troubling possibilities.
Finally, there is the clause on the age of consent. Personally, I doubt whether it should be in the Bill but, since it is, your Lordships will expect to hear a view from these Benches. The main point, if I may say so, that Christians will want to make is that the public debate in the press and in another place has focused too
434
much on the question of age: the age of consent. That, with respect, is not the Church's focus. The Church has teaching about human sexuality and sexual relationships which applies to all ages. The kernel of our position here is that the Christian vision of human sexuality would stress that the greater the degree of personal intimacy, the greater should be the degree of personal commitment, the one to the other, of those involved. In the Christian view, the ideal context for intimate sexual relationships is the married love of man and wife. The criminal law therefore has a part, but only a limited part, to play in affirming and upholding a wider and richer humane moral vision. I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for his quotations from Lewis's The Abolition of Man.
Parliament must make a prudential judgment about the age of consent in the light of its knowledge and understanding. From the evidence that we have heard from the police and those who know young people best, it is clear to me that there would be strong support from those who sit on the Bishops' Bench for the judgment that 18 strikes the right balance. It is not right to criminalise activity unnecessarily, but I do not find the argument for equality in this area as between heterosexual and homosexual practices convincing or in the public interest.
Many of these are very serious concerns and I hope it is not presumptuous to underline the danger of thinking that such things as the right to silence are simply clauses in any Bill. I am sure the Bill will benefit greatly from the very careful and independent-minded scrutiny it will receive in your Lordships' House.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, when it is enacted, this Bill will be the fifth criminal justice Act since 1987. That compares with a period of 40 years from 1947 to 1987 which saw the passage of the previous five criminal justice Acts. There is an irony in that, while the frequency of legislation has increased so dramatically, so have the incidence and the severity of criminal offending.
The moral I draw is not that each of those measures failed. They may have been appropriate for the circumstances of the time and they may have had some of the effects that were intended, yet effects which were not intended may also have resulted. The moral which we should keep in our minds as we debate this enormous Bill is the limited extent to which legislation can control deviant behaviour which leads to crime.
When the Bill was first introduced it was already very long. It had 117 clauses and 10 schedules, and during its passage through the other place no fewer than 35 new clauses were added, 31 of them at the initiative of the Government. Some were added at relatively short notice and have not received a great deal of consideration so far. No doubt that is something that your Lordships can give attention to during the Committee stage.
Standing back from this mass of detail in which we shall shortly be submerged, what are likely to be the most far-reaching effects, intended or unintended, of this Bill? I should like to refer to two, in particular. The first is the increased use of custody and the second is the

435
burden and standard of proof in criminal trials. The provisions on secure training orders, which have been the subject of debate already this afternoon, and other custodial sentences for juvenile offenders, restrictions on the grant of bail, and increases in maximum penalties, will combine to make a larger prison population inevitable. Indeed, the punitive climate of public and media opinion has already pushed up the prison population by 12 per cent. in the year ended February of this year.
Despite the additional capacity which has already been authorised by the Government—that is, the construction of six new prisons and the provision of 2,000 extra places in extensions built onto existing prisons—prison overcrowding is once again looming in an ominous way. We should not forget that overcrowding threatens not just the standards which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and others in the aftermath of his report, struggled so valiantly to improve; it contains the seeds of unrest and disorder which can erupt into violence and riot, sometimes ending in loss of life.
The lesson of Strangeways is that that riot took place in 1990 at a local prison, with a certified normal accommodation of 970 people. On the day that the riot erupted, there were 1,647 inmates (remand and convicted) in the prison.
Then there is the question of cost. Prisons are now the only open-ended and demand-led heading of public expenditure in which government policy is explicitly promoting higher expenditure. Virtually every other public service is subject to cash limits or other controls. Most informed observers believe that the crisis in the American penal system is caused by the ever-growing public demand for incarceration, without the provision of the necessary financial resources. We cannot afford to follow down that road.
The second issue is the one that has been the theme of the debate so far. It is the right of silence, or to put it more precisely, the inferences which may be drawn from a defendant's failure to answer questions or to give information in the circumstances defined in the Bill. It may be helpful to your Lordships to be reminded of the antecedents of these clauses. In 1988, following an upsurge of violent incidents in Northern Ireland, the law on the right to silence was modified substantially. It was modified by the Westminster Parliament, but because of the special procedures for handling Northern Ireland legislation, the changes were effected by statutory instrument and not by primary legislation. The resulting order (Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988) applied generally to criminal proceedings in the Province and was not confined to alleged terrorist offences tried without a jury.
It is worth noting that two of the articles were taken almost verbatim, with some minor changes in the wording, from similar legislation which had been enacted for anti-terrorist purposes in the Republic of Ireland in 1984. That is the provenance of the order which is now translated into the Bill for general application in England and Wales. It is an example of
436
special powers, which are argued as necessary to meet special situations, becoming normalised and extended to a wider setting.
In his notable maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, speaking with the authority of a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, saw an advantage in bringing procedure in England and Wales into line with that of Northern Ireland so that the same rules applied throughout. He expressed some reservations on the wording of the relevant clauses of the Bill and, as I understood his speech, was speaking mainly about the exercise of the right of silence at trial rather than at the police station, at the scene of the crime, or sometimes in transit between the two. It is that aspect which is the particular concern of Justice and others.
To conclude, my feeling on this undoubtedly difficult and contentious issue is that we are approaching a turning point. The Government insist that the proposals will leave the underlying principles untouched. Those are that the defendant's guilt should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt; and that the burden of proof should lie on the prosecution. Of course, I accept that without reservation as a statement of intention. But, like the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, I fear that it may not work out in that way.
If there is some evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused but not enough to secure his conviction—a common situation; there may be forensic evidence, for instance, which is not sufficient on its own—the fact that the unwillingness of the accused to co-operate with the police in their inquiries (possibly acting on legal advice) may be used against him as an inference of guilt will have profound implications for the burden and standard of proof. The question which arises—I take it no further this afternoon —and which should be in our minds as we address this matter in Committee is: are we seeing the first steps towards a shift from the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) towards the civil standard (the balance of probability)? The answer to that question will probably not be answered until we have a sixth criminal justice Act, but I sense that we may be moving in that direction.
7 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I want to confine my remarks to Part I of the Bill, which deals with young offenders and the secure training order. It is to me quite incomprehensible that the Government should have embarked on this lunatic and misguided scheme which goes totally against their policies as expressed in recent Green and White Papers. I quote from Punishment, Custody and the Community.
"Most young offenders grow out of crime as they become mature and responsible. They need encouragement and help to become law abiding. Even a short period of custody is quite likely to confirm them as criminals, particularly as they acquire new criminal skills from more sophisticated offenders".
Both the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and Mr. Douglas Hurd, when Home Secretary, sought to keep children out of the penal system. The secure training order will reverse the trend of the last century. Not only that. Thirty organisations working with young offenders oppose the order —the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Chief Probation

437
Officers, the Children's Society, the Law Society, the Prison Governors' Association and the Justices' Clerks Society, to name but a few. Even the very few organisations which have expressed support favour a very different type of order from that proposed by the Government. The Magistrates' Association stated that the majority of its branches supported a secure training order, although I believe its executive did not. But it emphasised that the order must be served in small, locally-based units. That is far from the Government's proposal. There are five secure training centres serving the whole of England and Wales where inevitably there will be minimum opportunities for families and the home social or probation worker to keep in touch. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report,Custody, Care and Justice published in 1991, stressed the importance of this. Only the Government seem to ignore it.
The Government, by creating the orders, seem prepared to breach international law on the treatment of young offenders. They ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 and adopted the UN standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice, called the Beijing Rules, in 1985. They are also subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows individuals to take cases to the European Court. The principles contained in these charters are recognised and implemented by the civilised world and were increasingly forming part of the UK juvenile justice system. The Bill sets back that process by two decades and puts us in breach of our international commitments in at least two broad aspects. The first is custody as a last resort. Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that,
"the imprisonment of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time".
The Beijing Rules provide:
"Deprivation of personal liberty shall not be imposed unless the juvenile is adjudicated of a serious act involving violence against another person or of persistence in committing other serious offences and unless there is no other appropriate response. The well-being of the juvenile shall be the guiding factor in the consideration of his or her case".
The Bill massively increases the powers of the court to lock up children. The new order for 12 to 14 year-olds is not even for "persistent offending" but for three imprisonable offences; it does not say if committed on one or more occasions. It could be for shoplifting at 11, 12 or 14. There could be a sentence of up to two years, one year of which could be spent in custody. That is twice the length of the custodial sentences which magistrates can impose on offenders of all ages from 15 upwards where they are limited to a maximum of six months for a single offence.
The Bill also doubles the maximum custodial sentence for 15 to 17 year-olds, lowers the age to 10 (from 14) for long-term custodial sentences for grave offences, empowers the court to remand 12 to 14 year-olds directly into secure accommodation and opens the provision of secure accommodation to the private sector. That was fought off when the Children Bill was going through this House. Not only can magistrates send children to detention for much longer at present, but, by a last minute amendment to the Bill with no prior
438
consultation, they will be able to do so without having an up-to-date report. That is wrong. We put that provision in a Bill only 18 months ago. Circumstances can change very rapidly with young people.
We have been given no hard evidence…only tabloid hysteria —that these powers are needed. The crime rate among juveniles has fallen by 37 per cent. since 1980. That point has been made but I think it is worth repeating. It can be related to demographic change. But the reduced use of custody, the increased use of cautioning and practitioner—led use of community schemes in the 1980s have had significant impact.
The Home Office commissioned the Policy Studies Institute to do some research, and this was published as Persistent Young Offenders. It revealed that locking up a small number of highly persistent young offenders would not make a substantial impact on juvenile crime by keeping them out of circulation during their sentences. Of its total sample of 531, 25 could have been eligible for the secure training order but they represented only 5 per cent. of the sample and their offences accounted for only 8 per cent. of the offences committed by the total sample. So the effect of these new and drastic measures can be seen to be practically nil. Crime will be very, very marginally reduced during the time spent in custody.
After custody, what happens then? All the evidence —and there is a great deal—goes to show that locking up young people, whether in prison, young offender institutions, approved schools or community homes with education, increased rather than decreased reconviction rates. The Home Office handbook, Sentence of the Court showed that 65 per cent. of first offenders and 78 per cent. of offenders with previous convictions, who were given approved school orders, were reconvicted within five years. When the characteristics of offenders were taken into account, those leaving approved schools had a reconviction rate, 45 per cent. higher than would otherwise have been expected from their characteristics and 7ecords.
The Lisnevin Training School in Northern Ireland, whose training school order is the nearest to what the Government propose to set up, has an abysmal record in this respect. The policy analysis branch there found a very bad reconviction rate. Its recent research (in 1993) found the reconviction rate of young people leaving the training school was over 85 per cent. I hope the Government pay heed to the research, in contrast to what they did about the Policy Studies Institute research, about which I have already spoken. The research was published in January 1994. But the Home Office, which had paid for it, published this Bill in December, before it had had time to study the research it had commissioned—not a very good way to spend money.
To return to the UN and European conventions—the inhuman and institutionalising treatment aspects—the UN convention provides in Article 9 that,
"children separated from their parents shall have direct contact with them on a regular basis".
Article 40 provides that,
"child offenders shall be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth [taking] into

439
account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in the community".
In Rule 18 the Beijing Rules provide,
"that institutionalisation should be avoided to the greatest extent possible".
In Article 3 the European convention,
"prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment".
The proposed secure training centres are almost certain to breach these provisions. They will hold almost three times the 15 recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1993. The Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seemed to think the number too small but there is absolutely no evidence for that. The geographical dispersal of the centres will mean that some children are held more than 200 miles from their home. The age range will comprise children of barely 12 to those approaching 16. That will increase the risk of bullying. The private sector has no experience of treating young people and will seek to recoup its capital outlay by profits in some way, most likely by reducing staff costs. Ofsted has reportedly expressed doubts that the education at the centres will be adequate.
In Clause 9 the custody officer's job is described as:
"(a) to prevent their escape from lawful custody; (b) to prevent, or detect and report on, the commission or attempted commission by them of other unlawful acts; (c) to ensure good order and discipline on their part; and (d) to attend to their wellbeing".
The emphasis is on punishment. The wellbeing of the children is the fourth and last duty. All references in the Bill are to the Prisons Acts and other criminal justice legislation, never to the Children Act 1989 whose prime concern was the needs and welfare of young people. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be here as he took such a full part and a great interest in the Children Bill when it was going through this House. He supported the thrust of the Bill, which was to make the welfare of the child paramount.
In the light of all the evidence and the substantial powers which courts currently have, I find it hard to believe that many noble Lords opposite can think that the secure training orders will reduce crime and bring back offenders from their offending to become decent and useful members of society, which many young offenders turn out to be. I find it hard to believe that many noble Lords opposite can be happy with legislation which may well lead to breaches of the UN and European conventions which this Government have signed, ratified and supported.
I ask the noble and learned Lord who will be replying to the debate to comment on those points in particular.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, some two years ago in the case of Regina v the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Appellate Committee had to consider the right of the director to interrogate pre-trial under the statute. The leading speech was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Mustill and he used this expression:
"The subject of the right of silence causes strong but unfocused feelings".
I hope that I shall have a little time to refer to some of the omissions in the Bill but perhaps I might touch on
440
the right of silence since it has been so much referred to in the hope of perhaps sharpening the focus on that particular problem.
The first point that I make is that it is high time that we avoided confusion by referring to a right with which we are not concerned. We are not concerned with the right not to incriminate oneself. We are concerned here solely with whether there is to be conferred on the prosecution and the judge a right to make critical observations because the accused has remained silent. That is quite a different matter.
The second point that I wish to make is that it is not part of English law that a person cannot be convicted as a result of his silence. That rather dogmatic observation is not of my creation, although I agree with it. It was said by the late Lord Chief Justice Widgery in a debate in your Lordships' House in 1973 when the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee was being considered. He said:
"It certainly has never been the law of England … that a man could not be convicted on the evidence of his silence".—[Official Report, 14/2/73; col. 1624.]
He gave two very obvious examples. The first is that it is well settled law, and has been for very many years, that if a person is found in possession of recently stolen property and remains silent and gives no explanation, the jury—and it is so instructed by the judge to this effect—can infer that he is either the thief or was the receiver of that stolen property.
The late Lord Chief Justice gave another very obvious example of a father who hears that his daughter has been assaulted by a neighbour. He sees the neighbour in the street and remonstrates with him about the allegation and the neighbour remains totally silent in circumstances in which it would have been expected that he would defend himself. That is a perfectly permissible basis on which he can be convicted.
What has happened is that we have an artificial rule which has grown up historically: first, as a result of nearly 100 years ago, allowing the accused for the first time to give evidence. The reason why he was not allowed previously to give evidence, as I understand it, was that he ran the risk of prejudicing his immortal soul if he took the oath and then was guilty of perjury.
Having produced that momentous decision that an accused person should be allowed to give evidence, naturally there was anxiety about the comment which would be made if he did not take advantage of that facility. Therefore, that odd quirk of the law, which gives only the judge the right to make a comment, was introduced quite contrary to the ordinary judicial principles of the judge holding the balance between the prosecution and the defence. The judge was, so to speak, being drawn into the arena and was expected to make a comment which the prosecution could not make.
The other reason for the right was the judge's decision as to the nature of the caution which, as your Lordships know, says in terms that the accused is not under any obligation to say anything but if he does, it may be used in evidence. That invitation would be a trick if having accepted the invitation to remain silent, there was comment.

441
But in the self-same debate as the late Lord Widgery appeared, Lord Dilhorne pointed out that that caution was an historic anachronism which arose out of two contradictory rulings given by two judges on assize at Birmingham. That is the significance of that particular source.
The next point that I make is that the abolition of immunity from comment is not a novel suggestion thought up by a Home Secretary to pep up a rather old-fashioned jury speech to his party faithful. It has an extremely respectable genesis which should have a nostalgic flavour, certainly to my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, if he were present. On the western circuit there was a Silk called Norman Skelhorn, Q.C. who was of incomparable ability in defence. All of us who knew him well used to say that if we got into trouble, he was the person that we should immediately go to. He specialised in defence work.
In due course, in about 1963, he was made the Director of Public Prosecutions—Sir Norman Skelhorn. At a very early stage thereafter, he reached the same conclusion as the noble Viscount; namely, that the balance had shifted too much in favour of the defence. He produced a paper, which he read and to which I listened in Sydney, Australia in 1965 at the Commonwealth law conference on the right of silence, suggesting that it was archaic, unjustified and should be overhauled.
In that year or a year earlier, the Home Secretary had asked the Criminal Law Revision Committee whether it would investigate the criminal law of evidence to see to what extent it should be improved. The actual nature of the request was,
"to review the law of evidence in criminal cases and to consider whether any changes are desirable in the interests of the fair and efficient administration of justice; and in particular what provision should he made for modifying rules which have ceased to be appropriate in modern conditions".
That was in 1964 or 1965. It was not until 1972 that the committee produced a voluminous report. That report set out the very recommendations which were embodied in a draft Bill annexed to it which has been the basis of the order made in Ireland.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the personalities on that committee. Presided over by Lord Edmund-Davies, it had the following Court of Appeal judges on it: Lord Justice Sellers, Lord Justice Lawton and Lord Justice James. In addition, there was Mr. Justice Finnemore, who was a very experienced High Court judge and, indeed, Sir Kenneth Jones. There was also the second senior Judge at the Old Bailey, then Mr. Griffith-Jones and three professors; namely, Professor Cross, Professor Seaborne Davies and Professor Glanville Williams, and others including Sir Norman Skelhorn.
The report did not fare well in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House, basically for one simple reason. By and large, those who spoke said, "You cannot remove that immunity from comment unless you have suitable safeguards". Tapes were only just beginning to roll and the majority of the committee were
442
against their use, although the minority were in favour. The House said, "Until you have tapes that work and proper safeguards, we shall not back it". That is how it came to founder.
I turn now to the onus. The onus of proof will not be, altered by the proposals. What will happen is that it will be made easier to prove the case. It was made easier to do so as a result of the 1967 Criminal Justice Act which provided that if you are going to run an alibi you must give notice of it with details of where you were and when, together with the names and addresses of supporting witnesses. If you cannot do so, then you will not be allowed to produce that defence without the concurrence of the judge. The heavens did not fall in regard to that provision.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an even more acute example: drink driving. I do not recall that there has been any suggestion that the European Court of Human Rights will castigate our law—and, no doubt, the law of most of Western Europe—which obliges a person who is stopped, in regard to whom there is reasonable suspicion that he has drunk too much, to provide a sample of his blood or urine. That is not taking away a comment on his silence; it is obliging him to produce evidence to incriminate himself. Similarly, the heavens have not fallen about that. Indeed, I believe that the general public think that it is a thoroughly sound idea. It has, however, taken much fun away from the Bar. In the old days, one had all kinds of comic tests that could be used. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble and learned Lord said that the onus will not shift. However, can he explain to the House how it comes about that two Royal Commissions and the Home Office working party carne to the conclusion that that is exactly what would happen? That is why they were against it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the simple explanation is that they are wrong. I thought that I had made that point quite clear.
I move on now to the previous Royal Commission which reported in 1980. It did not have available to it six years of experience in Ireland; not limited to cases involving terrorists, for example, the Diplock cases, but to the ordinary jury case. Therefore, one cannot blame those concerned for not considering its validity. However, with very great respect, I blame the current Royal Commission. It took no evidence of any kind and carried out no investigation as to what was happening in Ireland. However, the provision did not sneak through. The Home Secretary said in terms in 1986 that it would be reproduced in England as soon as it was convenient. Yet, nothing emanated from Ireland. That is why I am sure that the House is intensely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry for breaking his 15-year silence and coming here to give us the result of having discussed with his successor just how well it is working.
We are dealing with—and the point has not been clearly made—two entirely different categories.. The first category, and the one on which I place emphasis as did my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry, is the case

443
of the accused who has had the depositions from the prosecution months ahead of trial. He then attends trial with the benefit of solicitor and counsel and hears the cross-examination of the prosecution evidence by his counsel. On what basis should there be no comment on his silence? I rely on the very wise observations, as one would expect, from the former Law Lord, Lord Reid, who was one of the greatest judges of this century. When the issue was debated before him, having disowned any suggestion that there was such a thing as a right of silence in the sense that we are using, he said that the simple test is: are you being fair to the accused?
How is it being unfair to the accused who has had all that material, who has listened to the trial and who has heard the cross-examination of the evidence to say, "You are perfectly entitled to keep your seat in the dock if you are so minded. But unless you provide your explanation, it may be the subject of adverse comment"? I do not believe that Justice, which will be so well represented by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in any way suggests that that is an unfair situation now that the ritual about the invitation from the court has been removed through my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. I understood—although I may be quite wrong—that the Shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Blair, had no criticism of the in-court situation and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who is well-known for his liberal views, had nothing against it; nor, in my respectful submission, can there be anything against it.
The second category is quite different. I refer to the situation where the accused is being asked questions by the police. Again, I apply Lord Reid's approach; namely, are you being fair to the accused? I respectfully submit that you are not being fair to the accused, unless he has his lawyer present, is given an outline of what the police have got against him—if I may use the vernacular—and an outline of the type of questions that they want answered. If that is done and the questions are committed at least to a tape, but preferably to video, I submit, again, that you cannot be said to be unfair in any way.
If it is said—and this is my last point (there is no room for omissions so I shall have to reserve those)—that, "Ah, you are going to add to the costs". That will not be so. In fact, there will be many cases where defendants plead guilty instead of having long drawn-out fights. The legal profession will be re-educated not to ask the accused person, "Have you made any statement to the police?" and, when the answer is "No", respond with, "Thank heavens for that". There will be a different approach in which the adviser asks, "Have you yet put forward your defence?" On hearing the answer "No", the adviser will say, "Then we should lose no time about it". The reason is that the police have a duty to investigate and it is repugnant to common sense that that duty should be frustrated by archaic laws and practices. I do not in any way urge that we will have necessarily more successes in trials—I am not interested in that. I personally am
444
interested in having a sensible system which cannot be the mockery of the man in the street, as ours is in many respects.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who always enlivens the proceedings in some way or another and sharpens the focus. The sharpened focus is really crucial. There is no general rule, as has been suggested over and over again, that a man cannot be convicted on his silence. There is no question of self-incrimination arising, as was suggested by a certain noble Lord. The test is fairness to the accused in the way which was explained by the noble and learned Lord, and that is a totally sufficient and satisfactory test.
It was nice to have—certainly for me—some Western Circuit reminiscences of when we were all very young and a reference to our friend Norman Skelhorn, who eventually was elevated to become Director of Public Prosecutions, but that tempts me to stray from my rather duller task in hand. I must move straight away—no Western Circuit stories—to the main area of contention; that is, the proposals in Clauses 32 to 35 to allow an adverse inference to be drawn when the right of silence has been exercised.
We are on Second Reading and on Second Reading we are concerned only with questions of principle. I shall try to direct myself to the principle and not to the drafting. Having heard the speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lowry, Lord Hailsham, Lord Rawlinson and Lord Ackner, with whom I respectfully—as we say in the trade—and truly agree, I am able to shorten my speech and seek to avoid repetition. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, said, we are concerned with a principle which he accepts, subject to the drafting. This principle has been accepted by the noble and learned Lord, who has had the experience of working the proposed regime, by a former Lord Chancellor, a former Attorney General and chairman of the Bar Council and, I think, a former Law Lord and former chairman, who have sharpened the focus. However, the principle has been accepted not only by them; it has also been accepted in principle by the Magistrates Association and also by the Police Federation.
As to the powerful and most interesting speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, in support of Recommendation 83 of the Royal Commission, which appeared to attract the support of my noble friend Lord Windlesham and assuredly attracted the support of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the difficulty is that Recommendation 83 simply does not deal with what happens at the police station at all. I hope I may refer to the Bar Council's recommendation which adopts the report of the working group on the right of silence which refers to the caution at the police station. A person is cautioned thus:
"If you do not have anything to say, a record will be made of anything you do say and it may be given in evidence, so may your refusal to answer any questions. If there is any factor on which you intend to rely in your defence in court, it would be best to mention it now. If you hold it back until you go to court, you may be less likely to be believed".

445
If that recommendation of the working group, supported by the Bar Council, is accepted, then Recommendation 83 espoused by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would be otiose. I merely mention that in passing as a point of respectful argument.
At the outset I believe a certain noble Lord referred to the following matter. But the point must be made—perhaps it is another point of focus—that these proposed reforms, the rectitude of which is called in question, will assuredly neither increase nor reduce the risk of unsafe convictions on bent evidence with fake confessions. That is a matter of public importance and of general concern to be addressed by wholly other means, and indeed it must be addressed.
Today, and for some time in the past, the right of silence at the police station has been protected by the caution under the Judges' Rules. On trial by jury only the judge may comment on the exercise of such a right, but the permissible nature of such comment is governed by a series of case law decisions and no adverse inference may ever be drawn from the fact that an accused exercises his right of silence at a police station, or indeed in a court. The judges make that plain and the magistrates know their job. In the result, on occasions unwarranted advantages which defy all tenets of common sense are conferred upon an accused which inhibit the due administration of justice. But under this proposed regime—as I have said, acceptable to the Magistrates Association subject to guidance as to the implementation of the safeguards—an adverse inference may be drawn by the magistrates in the determination of guilt or as to whether there is a case to answer. On trial by jury the judge may take such adverse inference into account on a submission of no case to answer or by way of comment in his summing up, in which he would no doubt—I stress this—direct the jury that whether it drew the inference or not or took it into account or not in reaching its verdict was a matter of fact entirely for the jury. This is a matter of cardinal importance which does not seem to have been appreciated by one noble Lord—admittedly he was not a lawyer, and I forget who it was—who spoke in this debate.
If the accused refuses to give evidence under these proposed reforms or gives evidence but refuses to answer a question, whether the refusal was with or without cause so as to justify an adverse inference or a judicial comment would be dealt with in a similar manner. But there are safeguards and these are the safeguards on which the magistrates seek guidance as to implementation. As proposed by the Bar Council, counsel for the Crown and the defence would be entitled to call evidence and to make submissions to the magistrates and, in a jury trial, to the judge in the absence of the jury, as to whether any adverse inference should be drawn. Under the proposed regime, an essential and wholly sufficient safeguard for the protection of the innocent lies with the form of caution to which I have referred, with the integrity, patience and common sense of our lay magistrates who deal with about 95 per cent. of these cases, and with the judiciary.
On the burden of proof, I am prepared to grasp the nettle. I believe that one has to accept what some people call an adjustment. I have to accept that the drawing of
446
an adverse inference would have a qualifying effect on the burden of proof. However, that is the case with all forms of imposed disclosures where on noncompliance an adverse inference may be drawn.
I believe it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, who had looked up some 24 statutory examples, one of them being, in another context, a refusal of a putative father to submit to a DNA test. It is not, understood on an objective examination how such qualifying effects as are proposed by these clauses should be open to any objection. Indeed, it has not yet been pointed out. But surely the concept of the proposals appears to marry with the spirit of Recommendations 132 to 138 of the Royal Commission report as to pre-trial defence disclosure, which also assuredly qualifies the burden of proof and has the, approval of the Lord Chief Justice and, it is understood, the majority of the profession. To allow an adverse inference to be drawn where the court is satisfied on the, evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that it is fair and reasonable as a matter of common sense that such inference should be drawn ought not to be open to objection as a matter of principle as a derogation from the burden of proof.
I propose to shorten my speech. I merely take up the point on Clause 33. The reservations of Justice in the document that I have seen, I believe, are unfounded. The judge must leave the drawing of the inference to the jury. Assuredly, if he does, no breach of the European Convention on Human Rights is involved. Any injustice would be cured in our domestic revisory procedure long before the matter could ever reach the European Court of Justice. The permissible nature of judicial comment has been considered in many decisions. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, did not appear to appreciate that, if any unfairness arises, the conviction is quashed on appeal and that the summing up of the judge is the subject matter of a revisory decision of the courts.
Let us take, for example, the summing up of Mr. Justice Devlin upon the night of silence which in effect secured the acquittal of Dr. Bodkin Adams. But as we at the Bar all know, it was not adopted as a precedent by the Court of Appeal. On the other hand, there is the celebrated summing up of Mr. Justice Swift—it assuredly would not be acceptable when directing a jury under Clause 33—saying, "Members of the jury, you don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. The only person who knows what happened has not come forward to tell you what happened". Such a direction would be unfair. It could not even be qualified by some addition saying, "And you must remember that you may not convict merely on the silence of the accused".
There is no injustice in the proposals. On the whole, the initiative is much to be commended as acceptable not only to those who fear crime but also to a somewhat bewildered section of society sometimes called, I believe, the silent majority.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Henniker: My Lords, we are under half way through the number of speakers. It is my duty to speak as briefly as I can. I wish to make two points.

447
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was kind enough to say that I had some experience relating to juvenile problems. I have. For many years I have been associated with a community home; and until 1990 I was chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Fund and president of the Rainer Foundation. There I had experience of a scheme which was a success. We always talk of schemes which are not a success. I believe that the Intermediate Treatment Fund was a great success. The fund was set up as an alternative to prison. Juveniles were kept in the community who had either committed a crime or were at risk of committing a crime but had not yet done so. Our responsibility was to promote community treatment for those juveniles. I believe that the system worked. I do not know that anyone has yet recognised that the system worked, but it has.
The objective was to set up programmes of activity devised by the communities from which the offender or the child at risk came which reflected the views of that community and answered the problems of the offender. If one wishes to divert people from crime, or to change their ways, one must do that through people whom they understand. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said that having spoken to prisoners in Scotland they began to consider changing their ways. In the Intermediate Treatment Fund we found that getting someone to talk about his past, his crime, and his future was the first step to success. It was very difficult to do that. One never knows what is disliked by an offender and what will act as a deterrent in the future. However, while I was with the Intermediate Treatment Fund it was evident that, more than going to prison, such people disliked being made to face their crime, to see what it had done to their relations and to them. If they went to prison, they could shrug the matter off, but they did not like going through a form of restitution. However, although it was disliked, it was effective.
The numbers of people who went through the courses that we devised for them were large. Of those, 82 per cent. did not come back for re-sentencing. That figure compares with the system that is now said to work—prison—of which number 80 per cent. quickly return for re-sentencing. The figure of 82 per cent. who did not require re-sentencing represents a story of success.
I found the scheme a most stimulating experience. Members of the community hurled themselves into the scheme. We were being urged to enlist citizens in such activities. Active citizens came forward in droves. Many people who retire have nothing to do. There were plenty of people who were anxious to assist. If the young offender had a special requirement, there were always people in the community who had the necessary skill and experience to do what was needed to reform the child.
On the whole, it was a considerable success and something of which I was proud. Just before I left in 1990, we had our 10th birthday and we had begun to get through most of the growing pains and the scheme was working properly. We went round the country looking at various projects and everywhere there were enthusiastic groups running them: in Sunderland and especially
448
Liverpool, as well as curious places like Penzance, which had an extremely good project, Basildon and Southend. They were all working well.
That kind of project has an effect on the community, the community works in it and the people who helped to draw up the courses began to take an interest in the local problems, such as unemployment, drugs or whatever it might be. People joined in trying to cure the root cause of offending. That was a valuable side effect and on the whole it all worked well.
I was sad when we came back from the trip. We went around the country and felt that we had seen something good growing, doing the job it was set up for. The Government had set it up in order to divert people from crime into some other occupation. One of the objects was to introduce them to other activities, keep them active, not necessarily to provide work but to find them something to do. It is a great way of avoiding people "seeping" into crime. It worked extremely well and I wanted to make that point.
When I came back, I was patted on the back and told: "You've done well". However, without further ado, I was told that my money would go, it was being tapered off and the project would be taken over by the private sector. There was no prior discussion and, while I was handing over to my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I was told that it would happen, the private sector would take it over. Ever since then, I have felt that we should provide it and it seemed to me the one thing I had found that had a proper foundation in the community. Youngsters will be influenced by their community, they talk the same language, they come back to the community and to those who suffered from their crimes. Those people are the best ones to talk to youngsters about the effect of their crimes and that has a remarkable result.
I wanted to make that point because I felt extremely guilty when my money was suddenly taken away and felt sorry for all the splendid people all over the country with whom we had become close friends and who had done so much. One felt one had let them down badly. I also felt sad for my poor successor, there was little I could do except cheer on the sidelines and hope that I could help. I think that he has got the scheme going now. It was an extremely good project, relying on the community, but that community may now be disillusioned because people have been left high and dry for some time with virtually no government money coming in—£500,000 per year for the whole country. People of every political persuasion said to me: "It is measly, you ought to be getting a great deal more". Nonetheless, through the work of volunteers we were able to encourage enough money to come in. We managed to get charities interested, with masses of volunteers. Once we set people off with their start-up costs, premises and the equipment that they needed, they would be able more or less to carry on without anything further than moral encouragement and a little help in various ways which they might want of a technical kind.
I wanted to make all this clear because I imagine that the people who helped me felt that to some extent they had been left high and dry. I wanted to make amends by

449
saying that they were magnificent and that there are people in the community who are marvellous in leading young would-be criminals away from crime.
A further point which worries me is the new legislation on the secure training centres. I have been associated with young people for a long time and it seems to me that it is a large enterprise for not many people. The Minister mentioned some good examples of people who were out of hand and we know that there are those who cannot be controlled except under restraint. There is a case for restraint being applied to them, but there are not many of them, according to my information. The proposal is to have 200 places over live years, which will cost £30 million overall, with 40 young people in each centre. That is a lot of money. There are a number of secure places already under local government and I gather that more are to come from the Government. I hope that they will come under local government. The point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who said: "These are children who will be in prison". The secure training centres are far too like prisons, it seems to me, with the rules of prisons. So far as I can see, there is the possibility of transfer to an adult prison if there is no room for them in a secure training centre. The rules are not those which children will react to very well.
There also seems to me to be an absence of provision for care. I do not know who will run the secure training centres but presumably they will be built and run by the private sector. Who will the staff be? It will be interesting to find out. I know that the Prison Service feels it is inadequately equipped for the job and has no wish to do it. I run a curious school for children and one has to realise that they need an enormous amount of activity, with skilled people to keep them occupied. I hope that the Minister can give me his reassurance that there are plans to give the children skilled people to look after them, people who will know how to do that. I may not be fully informed, but I was told the other day that there is no provision for reform. Children are active, even if they have been bad; they want something to do all the time. I have them running round my estate and they make a huge noise and are always doing something. Those children may deserve punishment—I quite agree that they probably do—but one never knows what the punishment is. The children that we had under Intermediate Treatment regarded being taken through a course of understanding their crime as being a worse punishment than going to prison.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me that there will be provision for skilled staff and that it will be possible to put all the secure places under local government. I believe that the new centres will be run by local government and I hope that there will be provision from the Department of Health under the Children Act for care and that it will be obligatory.
Those are the two points that I wish to make. I should be grateful for some reassurance on them. I should be grateful too for reassurance that there is a possibility that the children may be placed near enough to their home. One of the points that has disturbed me is how far apart the centres are likely to be. There are five of them in the whole country. I agree with the report of the noble and
450
learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which pointed out that it is necessary for children to receive home visits and have the feeling of being attached in some way to their home. I hope that those points are in the Government's mind when they set up the system.
8 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise that a business engagement means that I need to leave before the end of this debate.
I believe that all of us are only too well aware of the public concern about crime. I should like to make it plain that I support the Government in treating this issue as one that calls for priority. Better crime prevention is crucial; so, too, is improved detection. The current clear-up rate of 26 per cent. must be far too low, Similarly, the conviction rate of 2 per cent. of recorded crime, leaving 98 per cent. of crimes going unpunished, can give the public no faith that offenders will be brought to justice. I hope that we shall look sympathetically at the aims of the Home Secretary and of the Government as a whole in bringing forward a Bill which seeks to improve the position in so many respects.
I should like to focus particularly on one aspect of the Bill; namely, the proposal in Clause 32 to modify the right of silence of a suspect immediately on apprehension, in transit to the police station and when in the police station. In giving what are my personal views, I am also giving the views of Justice, the all-party law reform group, of which I am chairman. As noble Lords will know, Justice has particularly valuable experience stemming from the major role that it has played over almost 30 years in the investigation of miscarriages of justice.
There is no doubt that our system of criminal justice calls for much improvement and streamlining. It is in my view hedged about by rules which make it too adversarial and too cumbersome, and which provide too much scope for the guilty defendant to seek to obfuscate the issues and hoodwink the jury. Improvements are needed to meet the public expectation that the trial process should be less of a ritual, less of a game and better at convicting the guilty. Yet, as recent well-known cases of miscarriages of justice have shown, improvements are also needed to prevent wrongful convictions and to protect the innocent. Change is needed to maximise the prospect: of convicting the guilty and yet minimise the risk of convicting the innocent. I hope that we all share this aim, stated so clearly by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham earlier in this debate.
For me, the absolutely central improvement would be to sharpen the focus of the issues by the time of trial. At present, in almost all cases a defendant need say absolutely nothing right up to trial. There seems no sensible reason to retain that archaic approach. It is unsatisfactory that a defendant should be able to keep his cards close to his chest right up to the trial. I believe that once the prosecution has laid out the case upon which it will rely at trial and the defendant is advised by a lawyer, then the defence should be required to make

451
the outline of its case plain. That is fair to society as a whole. The great American jurist, Benjamin Cardozo, once wrote:
"Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also".
It is only fair to victims, witnesses, juries and the public that we should ask for defence disclosure. It will much reduce the scope for attempts to confuse the jury. I am glad that the Royal Commission supported that viewpoint, which I believe to be widely shared by the legal profession, which I do not personally find over-conservative in this respect. In their interim response to the Royal Commission Report, the Government have indicated that they see some attractions in the proposal for defence disclosure. But it is, understandably but sadly, not in the present Bill.
I also believe, as does the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, that it is appropriate that comment in proper terms—the noble Viscount summarised what those terms might be—could be made at trial on the failure of the accused to testify at that trial. I hope that that indicates that my credentials do not seek to maintain scales that are tilted in favour of the accused, and do not seek to maintain illogical rules or archaisms.
I turn now to my concern about what I see as the risks to the innocent. This Bill does not contain a proposal for defence disclosure prior to trial, when the prosecution has laid out its case and when the defendant is advised by a lawyer. Instead, it proposes that on apprehension, on the way to the police station, in the police station and even without the advice of a lawyer available, the defendant who exercises his right of silence will be warned that he risks adverse comment at trial. He will be told that he has a right, but he may suffer if he exercises that right.
That is a fundamental change to what has so long been regarded as a fair safeguard for the individual. Some say that an innocent defendant has nothing to fear from this approach. I do not agree. Most miscarriages of justice in the past have been fuelled by inaccurate confession evidence. Pressure on the accused to speak in a police station, which for many people is by its very nature unfamiliar, potentially oppressive and indeed intimidating, will increase the risk both of false confessions and of people being unfairly at risk because of their sheer inability to do themselves justice in an unfamiliar situation.
I am glad that so many in this House share that view. I am glad, too, that it has the support of those organisations that have great, immediate and practical experience of the nitty-gritty of what happens in police stations and in the criminal courts. The Bar Council, the Law Society, the Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association and the Criminal Bar Association all believe that change would be damaging. Within the Bar, opposition to the change is shared by those who prosecute as well as by those who defend. Indeed, Roy Amlot QC, former senior Crown prosecutor at the Old Bailey, has said,
"The presumption of innocence must be gravely affected because the onus is placed on the accused to provide his defence at an early stage and the court can infer guilt if he fails to do so".
452
But perhaps even more important than the unanimous views from across the legal profession are the views of two Royal Commissions which have considered this precise issue in the past 15 years. Each rejected the proposal that there should be an erosion of the right of silence in the police station. Each expressed the view that it could increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. I have the greatest respect and, generally, sympathy for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but it is not enough for him to say with all his eloquence simply that those Royal Commissions are wrong. Those Royal Commissions gave reasons. In 1981, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure said this:
"It might put strong (and additional) psychological pressure upon some suspects to answer questions without knowing precisely what was the substance of and evidence for the accusations against them … This in our view might well increase the risk of innocent people, particularly those under suspicion for the first time, making damaging statements".
In its report last year, the Royal Commission that was chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, took exactly the same view. Yet, only weeks after its report, with no reasons given, the Government indicated that they would bring forward a recommendation that would disregard that conclusion. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, has reinforced that view today. I hope that noble Lords who heard him will also read his speech and that we shall heed his words.
As I understand it, the main argument for the proposed change is that the hardened criminal shelters behind the right of silence and that makes conviction more difficult. Of course it is frustrating to police who are making conscientious enquiries into serious crimes. But that change will not increase the chance of convicting such criminals. Both the Royal Commissions took the view that those who knew the system would remain silent and would justify doing so by stating that lawyers had advised them to remain silent until such time as the allegations against them were fully disclosed. By sharp contrast, the people who would be affected, as our experience at Justice shows, are the more vulnerable, the less experienced and the less articulate suspects. That risk is considerable.
Under the present Bill, the right to question would arise on apprehension, on the way to the police station and again in the police station. There is no obligation for a lawyer to be present. Indeed, such an obligation would be largely unworkable. Only 13 per cent. of suspects in the police station currently have a legal adviser present. That adviser is often not a qualified lawyer. I recently heard of an out of work actor who was filling leisure time by acting as adviser in that respect.
There is no requirement that the police should disclose the case that the defendant is somehow expected to answer. Nor is there yet the other essential safeguard of the requirement for a taped record of exactly what was said and what was not said. It is not a question of someone merely being required to state simply whether they have an alibi or why they were at a particular place. Adverse inferences may be drawn from a failure to disclose any fact at all which was relied on in defence.
I see this measure as a charter for unlimited police interrogation, which puts the accused at risk if he does.

453
not answer immediately, fully and lucidly. This all takes place in an unfamiliar atmosphere and in an interview which, however fairly conducted, inevitably appears to the accused as frightening and intimidating. Indeed, a former president of the Law Society who has great experience in this area recently told me that even duty solicitors often feel intimidated in the police station. Perhaps that should not be so, but it is a fact.
Finally, I ask your Lordships to consider how the proposed system would work in practice. Let me read out the words of the caution which, I understand, would be administered to a suspect:
"I am going to put some questions to you. You are not obliged to answer them. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you".
Your Lordships may of course all be instantly capable of the mental gymnastics which allow you to digest the news that you have a right of silence but that if you exercise the right, you may be adversely affected. But there may be lesser mortals who find those statements, if not incomprehensible, self-contradictory. To such lesser mortals they may well appear to put on them a powerful need to speak and provide an answer to every question and every insinuation. If so, whatever protection the judge may offer at trial, the right of silence will be eaten away. Surely some will find it a thoroughly confusing ritual. Many will see it as pressurising a suspect. I see it, in Lord Reid's great words, cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as unfair to the accused.
The Royal Commission which reported last year was set up because of a deep anxiety as to the way in which miscarriages of justice were undermining confidence in our legal system. Most of those miscarriages reflected unsatisfactory pressure in the police station. That has been the weak area in our system. More, not fewer, safeguards are needed. It would be most disappointing if, in response to that canker of miscarriages of justice, the protection for those apprehended and taken to the police station were not strengthened. Surely it would be highly ironic if, as a result of this proposal, such protection was reduced.
I indicated at the outset that I have much sympathy with what the Government seek to do to meet public concern about crime. I am content that there should be reasonable comment on the failure of an accused to testify at trial. I believe strongly that there should be defence disclosure, so that everyone may know the issues at trial. I believe that that would help convict the guilty but would also protect the innocent, provided—but provided only—that we do not erode the right of silence in the police station.
I apologise to my noble friend the Minister, whom I support in principle on this Bill, for raising these doubts. But they are deep and they are acute. I temper my apology by saying that I hope he will accept that I believe that they transcend party politics, dealing, as they do, with vital issues of individual human rights.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. My noble friend Lord Windlesham pointed out that it is the tenth criminal justice Bill since 1945. I confess that I have spoken on all of them. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will hear me briefly this evening also.
The Bill is the most wide ranging and, in my opinion, the most courageous of all those criminal justice Bills. Indeed, it is so far-reaching that it has the longest Long Title in modern history. It is none the worse for that. As has been pointed out, we have very serious problems with the crime wave. It is with some reluctance that I. point out that, despite this being the tenth criminal justice Bill, and there having been a number of Bills for the treatment of offenders, criminal law Bills and two Acts for the administration of criminal justice—despite all those efforts by Parliament and the Government—crime has continued to increase, broadly speaking, year by year since 1945.
When I was a Home Office Minister and occupied the position now held by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, in 1961 not only did we have a criminal justice Bill but we published a White Paper on crime and punishment. I remember that at a reception the Archbishop of Canterbury at that time, Dr. Ramsey, came up to me and said, "This is splendid. I think the Government have done all they can and now it is up to the people." As politicians, we know that the people do not accept that view. They expect us to continue to persuade Parliament to pass laws to get more police officers and increase the powers of the police. Some noble Lords have pointed out that there are causes of crime which are beyond our control and that the people should be reminded by us, as politicians, that the whole of society has a part to play if we are to succeed in helping them in that way.
There are only about three clauses in the Bill for which the Government are not responsible. Those are the clauses on homosexuality, which no doubt will be discussed very fully at Committee stage. In view of what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, when he mentioned this matter and AIDS, it may be of interest to your Lordships to learn that in answer to a Question for Written Answer which I tabled recently, I was told that up until 31st December 1993, no fewer than 1,014 deaths from AIDS had occurred in the United Kingdom, and of those, 732 were deaths of homosexual men or men known to be bisexual. That will be a relevant factor when we come to consider the matter, and that is why I dare to put it forward now.
The provisions dealing with young offenders in the first part of the Bill are long overdue, whether or not they affect a large number of people. Whatever other causes there may be for the increase of crime among young people, it is clear that the soft attitude—many people call it the "understanding" attitude—of authority, whether it is Parliament, the Government, the judiciary or welfare officers, has been misunderstood and abused by the young. The time has come for authority to assert itself and those provisions are therefore necessary.
However, along with my noble friend Lord Windlesham I am worried about the logistics of the

455
matter. The young people will need to be accommodated when all the provisions in Part I are applied. That means that we shall need more accommodation than presently exists. It is a separate issue from the prison situation, which is chronic as we know. We have the largest number of prisoners per head of population in Europe and severe overcrowding. Thank goodness we are building more prisons, just as we did in the 1960s and as was done by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw in the 1980s when he was Home Secretary. It will be helpful if at some stage, not necessarily this evening, my noble friend on the Front Bench can let us know how the accommodation problems, which may arise when Part I comes to be implemented, will be dealt with.
In relation to Part III of the Bill, I listened with great attention to the ever-lucid and persuasive comments of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, as I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and others. Were I sitting judicially, it is a matter on which tonight I would reserve judgment. Frankly, the arguments are extremely serious. They are in serious conflict with each other. I want to read the speeches again—having already tried to listen to them—and hear also what is said in Committee. It is not an easy matter. It is a big change in our long process of criminal justice and, for the moment, I keep an open mind.
Part V of the Bill relates to public order. We have a long tradition of freedom in our country for all the people. But freedom is easily abused, sometimes by groups of people who put forward the most bogus reasons for so-called social justice and for being a nuisance to other people. We cannot achieve freedom for the community without order. Most criminal laws exist to protect the majority against the misdoings of the minority. It is only a minority of people who steal, and the majority must be protected from them. Part V breaks new ground in protecting the majority from the minority and in my opinion the Government are fully justified in that. It is an important Bill and we shall need to consider it at length. Meanwhile, I wish the Government well with it.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I rise to give a brief but heartfelt welcome to Clause 83. Clause 83 is intended to extend the enforcement of the Video Recordings Act. Your Lordships may recall that last year I introduced into this House a short Bill with exactly the same purpose in mind. Your Lordships were good enough to pass it; it had a painless passage through another place and is now enacted. One point I always hoped would be contained in the Bill is the by-pass power for local authorities and their trading standards officers in the matter of pursuing what I call the villains of the video business. I may have persuaded several noble Lords that that was right but not enough for it to be included in that Bill. I am therefore delighted to see it reappear in this Bill.
I have a special interest and reason for being delighted; I am a vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. That board suffers from several
456
frustrations, one of which is very much in your Lordships' minds at the moment; that is, that the parents in this country appear to pay no attention whatever to the classifications we make, no matter with what care we make them. Indeed, they appear to give no heed whatever to what their children watch, however unsuitable. But I shall not pursue that matter this evening. I feel that it will be pursued at great length in Committee when the Minister introduces the amendments he promised in the course of opening the debate.
The other frustration has been going on for a long time and Clause 83 may help to correct it. It is that, although we classify with the greatest care, there are plenty of people in the world who put out videos entirely ignoring our classification, sometimes transmuting them and putting back cuts that we made, and in many cases putting out videos with either false classifications or none at all. Some of those are video nasties. They are distributed like that because it is known that we would not give them a certificate. Indeed, the phrase "video nasty", which is being much over-used at the moment, was coined in the old days for that very reason; that is, the video was so nasty that it was not likely to receive a certificate. Nowadays it is used by everybody for videos they do not personally like, which is a rather more confusing and less helpful definition.
One of the problems of uncertificated videos is that if one is discovered in a local shop, the trader may well be prosecuted. But, whether or not that prosecution is successful, if it transpires that the real villain of the piece is a distributor who is distributing the videos wholesale but he is not in the same local authority area as the dealer who sold or hired them, the local authority and its trading standards officers cannot pursue that villain in that other place. They must needs go to the other local authority and try to persuade it to mount a prosecution, which in many cases it does not do. That other local authority may not have the time, money, resources or even perhaps the will to do so. In the rare cases where it does, it must needs mount a completely new prosecution and start all over again. The by-pass power enables the trading standards officers and the local authority prosecuting in one area to pursue the notional distributor wherever he is. That could mean an enormous saving in administrative time and cost. What is more, it will have a tremendously deterrent effect upon what I described as the villains of the video world.
Before I sit down I also give an even briefer welcome to paragraph 20 of Schedule 9, which I mention simply because there is a good chance it will never be mentioned again. It concerns the nature of a video work. We used to think of film. Then we thought of video, tape and even records. Now the wonders of the electronic world are such that it has become possible for works which look extraordinarily like videos and films to appear on computers for all the curious children that the computer world has produced. The clause merely redefines a work so that it covers any electronic medium; and not before time. I believe that those clauses will have a very salutary effect on the health of the video world. I commend them to the House.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I want to speak for a few moments on behalf of victims. We have talked a lot about what the Bill will do to those who are convicted of crimes. I should like to speak about what it may do for those who suffer crime—for those little old ladies whose homes are broken into and valuables they have kept all their lives are taken away and who are perhaps beaten up in the process; for those who try to run businesses in difficult areas and whose premises are continually broken into by young thugs who break down their doors and steal their products; for those who try to carry out their lawful activities in the countryside and in so doing are suddenly barged upon by hoards of people who hit them over the head, destroy their sport and cause great aggravation not only to them but to all those round about; for those in our society who try to live a peaceful life but find that all the time they have to adjust themselves to those who want to destroy everything. No one has mentioned those people.
We talk in terms of putting children into gaol, but we are not putting children into gaol. We are putting into gaol people who have been convicted of serious offences against other people and who have gone through all kinds of processes to try to rehabilitate them but have not responded. So what we have had to adopt are processes that take those people away and make secure the vast majority of people in this country who want to live a quiet and sensible life and get on with the main job of running their own affairs. There are in our society people who want to disrupt that. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the minorities in society—the fundamentalists in our society —who want to impose their view on everyone else and are prepared to carry out criminal actions in order to achieve it. Is it not right that we should take action to protect the victims of those approaches? There are proper and legitimate ways to act if one wants to change society.
I welcome very much the Government's initiative. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House we will consider those people whom we have not considered so much this afternoon—the people who suddenly have their land invaded by groups who have no respect for their crops or animals and descend with their caravans and cannot be moved on. It is nonsense that law abiding citizens who are trying to earn a living should suddenly be invaded by such people and that legislation does not make it possible for them to be moved on. This legislation does make it possible and it is right and proper that it should do so.
It is easy for us to look at the matter in terms of the impact on the criminal. We forget too often those who suffer from those criminal activities. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned special legislation for racial harassment and for those who suffer from racial crime. I cannot see how a person who is not an Englishman suffers any more when he is beaten up than anyone else might suffer when he is beaten up. I find it difficult to understand that it is worse to harass or beat up one person than another. I hope that when we come to deal with that part of the Bill we shall realise that if we want to stop harassment we must increase the punishment for
458
everyone. It is just as traumatic for a little old lady to be beaten up as it is for a person who may have come from abroad and who lives here. I hope that we will see these issues on behalf of the victim and not the person who is committing the crime.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the fact that we were dealing here with the perpetrators of the crime and not considering those issues that might cause crime. I should have thought that this was a Bill in which those issues were not likely to be considered. The Government have brought forward other legislation to deal with those aspects. We now have running a regeneration scheme in our urban areas which is having a great impact on improving the standard of living throughout what are now difficult areas. We have recently taken through an education Bill which, it is to be hoped, will deal with some of those issues within our education system, which does not impose sufficient discipline on young people in the first place. There is no doubt that many of the education problems have arisen because people have taken a liberal view on the importance of having discipline in our society at an early stage.
This is a right and proper Bill to bring before the House. I believe that it will do much to improve the confidence of those who fear that crime might take place around them. Perhaps noble Lords will think back to when they had young babies. Was it necessary for noble Lords to worry about leaving them in a pram outside a shop or leaving them in a public place? Now we are all aware that our daughters would throw up their hands in horror at the idea of leaving their baby for any period of time unprotected for fear that the child might be whisked away and have some damage done to it. Those are the issues that we must be aware of in considering the Bill. I welcome it and trust that it will move through the House with everyone having in the forefront of their mind the victims of society whom we have so seriously to protect.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I seek to speak on two aspects of the Bill. The first concerns the Government's response to the amendment on the competency of children, which was put forward by the NSPCC in another place. I take the view that the amendment should be strengthened by giving clear guidance to judges as to when children are to be considered competent.
It is disappointing that the government amendment in relation to children giving evidence on commission should have to await the results of Professor Graham Davies's research, commissioned by the Home Office, becoming available. There is a category of very young children who are left out of the court system because their memories will not stand up to the average delays of 10 months before they are called for cross-examination. Professor Davies's research will not cover these children because there will not be a decision to interview them. The argument in favour of postponing this new legislation does not therefore stand up and these children should not be made to wait.

459
My second point concerns the secure training order and the establishing of five secure units for children aged 12 to 14 who are persistent offenders. I ask the Minister whether it is true that the units will be built on prison service land? Is it suggested that those prisons will be Rochester, Oxford, Rugby, Doncaster and Consett? If so, the five centres do not cover the whole of the country. Thus parents will not be able to visit regularly nor take part in consultations concerning their children. Each of the five prisons will accommodate 40 boys and girls. I understand that they will be the responsibility of the Home Office. Will the Home Office contract them out to an organisation in the private sector? If so, will the staff be expected to be trained and experienced in dealing with such children? Is the estimated cost to run the five units £30 million per annum for five years? That is £150,000 per child per annum.
I have worked in the children's department of the Home Office, in the Department of Health, as a children's officer, and as a director of social services in a local authority. I have worked alongside juvenile delinquents and their families. I am not soft on crime. I applaud my noble friend Lord Ferrers and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary for seeking ways to diminish juvenile crime in this country. But I contend that the setting up of secure training units is not the way to deal with the problem. History, experience and research have proven that incarceration in residential secure units, far from the parents, the home and the community, fails in its objectives.
We should not allow the problem to get out of proportion. The Home Office Select Committee of 1993 reported that between 1980 and 1990 juveniles found guilty or cautioned for indictable offences declined by 37 per cent. A Home Office survey across 33 police forces during three months in 1992 found that only 106 young people in the country had committed 10 or more offences.
Many noble Lords have spoken of voluntary and professional organisations being against the setting up of secure training units. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David. The organisations include the Probation Service, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the voluntary child care organisations, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the National Children's Bureau and Young Minds. There are many others. That is formidable opposition. Research carried out by the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Dartington Social Policy Research Unit and many universities indicates that prison-like schemes far from home prove to be unsuccessful; hence the closure of approved schools and detention centres.
What is the present position of young offenders? Local authority social services departments, under the auspices of the Department of Health, may set up secure units, often shared by a number of local authorities and in easy reach of parents, relatives and the communities of the children. The local authority secure units take remand cases and children where guilt has been proven. They act as an assessment centre for each child. Because
460
it is local, parents are involved in the formulation of a plan for each child. The Dartington research unit has written,
"Work which addresses the family structure of a child is likely to achieve some success".
It may be assessed that a child can return home under supervision or go to a supervised foster home. The scheme is proven to be successful by the Coram Foundation. If a child needs long-stay residential accommodation there are many voluntary organisations able to deal with such cases; for example, the Charterhouse group. There are vacancies.
The problem is that some local authorities have not been able to set up secure units because of lack of resources. There are 300 secure places and the Department of Health is at this moment providing resources for 170 more places. There is in place the administrative structure to deal with children aged 12 to 14. So why set up a costly parallel structure which is unlikely to succeed? Why are two ministries dealing with the same problem? Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities and voluntary organisations can also set up intensive supervised activities. That was spoken to very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Henniker. In those arrangements children can remain at home or in a supervised foster home. The projects are known not only to the noble Lords, Lord Henniker and Lord Hunt, but also to my noble friend Lord Elton. They are called intermediate treatment centres.
Some excellent schemes are run by voluntary organisations. Here again, because of a lack of resources, many authorities have not set up such schemes. It should be said that there are not enough social workers in post and that their training of two years is inadequate for the responsibilities which they have to bear. It should also be said that preventive measures—for instance, the youth service in this country—have been curtailed because of lack of resources.
Those of us who deal with these children take into account very much what my noble friend Lord Wade said. In every case, when dealing with children who have committed offences, whether they be in a local authority secure unit, in voluntary homes or in the community, it is brought to their notice and they are helped to understand the sorrow and suffering which they have brought on the victims. I wish to underline that point.
I recommend an overall inquiry involving the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the voluntary sector. Discussion should take place overall and a report made to Parliament. I also recommend that in each local authority there should be set up a panel to co-operate in the prevention of juvenile crime in the area. Early detection of children in trouble is essential. The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on achieving a grant of £30 million from the Treasury. Surely, this sum, which is to be spent on 100 children, should be used in ways that would go far to diminish juvenile crime.
This morning I received a reply from the Prime Minister to a letter I had sent to him. I am grateful to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the

461
Minister whether, as a result of that reply, the Home Secretary will be prepared to meet those of us who oppose the secure training units, realising that there are other and better ways of dealing with children who commit crimes in this country.
8.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have many things to say to the House about this Bill, but, to use scriptural language, I cannot say them now. The noble Baroness has made a formidable speech which will certainly cause a great deal of anxiety to the Government. In matters affecting children she has unique authority in this House and indeed in the whole country. I do not know of anyone who is better worth listening to. I shall leave the question of young offenders this evening to the noble Baroness although I have written a book on the subject. If no one wishes to buy it I suppose they can obtain it in the Library here.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, referred to victims. The Government talk about helping them rather than the criminals. Anyone who was present at the debate in this House not long ago will know how shocking is the attitude displayed towards victims. There is general condemnation. Do not let us suppose for a moment that noble Lords opposite have a helpful message for victims at present anyway. As regards the privatisation of prisons I have called that "obscene" before now and I shall continue to describe it in that way.
I shall confine myself to discussing a general question. It is an everlasting question which no doubt troubled my distinguished colleague here, a former Home Secretary, Lord Merlyn-Rees. It has troubled the present Home Secretary, his Labour successor and many others. The question is this: how does one reconcile an effective law and order policy with constructive penal reform? It will never be an easy question nor one which will ever be perfectly answered.
In the years before the arrival of Mr. Howard on the scene, various Home Secretaries (all good Conservatives) made a gallant attempt, with one possible exception whom I shall not indicate now. No, I am not making a bitter speech, you will understand. They made a gallant attempt: they tried to solve that problem and on the whole, considering the increase in crime, they kept down the prison population. Indeed they even reduced it in the years before the arrival of Mr. Howard—or at least I believe it may have begun to increase just before he arrived. Mr. Howard, however, adopted a new approach. He arrived on the scene without, of course, previous knowledge of prisons. His most ardent admirers have only been able to argue that he once visited Brixton, and they have never quite said when he visited Brixton. However, let us accept that Mr. Howard once visited that prison and within a finite number of weeks he emerged with a policy containing 27 points to cope with crime.
People said that Mr. Gladstone was an old man in a hurry; this was a Home Secretary in a hurry, and so now we have the present Bill. All that talk at the Conservative Conference, summed up in that memorable phrase, "Prison works"—that is a phrase he must
462
now regret—would certainly never have been used by his predecessor. I do not think that until Mr. Howard arrived on the scene it would have been used by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has defended all those predecessors so eloquently. As I say, Mr. Howard has now come forward with a new Bill, which we have before us.
Recriminations apart, and looking to the future, how far can we see our way forward in terms of trying to reconcile a policy of effective law and order—in other words, prevention of crime—and constructive penal reform? Summarising in my own words, I would say that we have to adopt a policy towards prisoners, not only while they are in prison but after they leave, which will make it much less likely that they will commit crime in the future. That would be the surest way of reducing crime in the future.
Speaking in "shorthand", as is best at this time of night, I think the clue is to be found in two words: resettlement and aftercare. The idea must never be abandoned of prison being a total educative process. But let us talk about the more limited objective of trying to prepare prisoners for when they leave prison, and of looking after them when they leave. In a moment I will indicate one or two valuable experiments made by the Home Office, because I do not think the picture is entirely black. However, it is all on a very small scale. I visit prisons once a week and I can think of one particular prisoner whom I saw the week before last who was leaving prison three days later. He had no idea of any plan at all for his future. There may have been something planned somewhere in the Home Office, but nothing had come through to him. All he could say was that when he left prison he was going to take his suitcase and go to the probation officer he had been told to see, dump his suitcase down and say, "Find me accommodation".
That was all he felt he could do after some time in prison. He had been in and out of prison and had served a very long sentence. That was all that had been done for him. The vast majority of prisoners are not catered for at all. Resettlement is still on a very small scale and, so far as the Home Office is concerned, aftercare has even less importance. Again, I want to be fair to the Home Office, or shall I say less unfair than some people think I usually am? I would suggest that Members of this House who have not visited Latchmere House go there and see it. It is a marvellous resettlement prison. The regime is so enlightened that I dare not mention it in case it is stopped by the authorities higher up. Again, there is Blantyre House: another marvellous place, although I do not believe it describes itself as a resettlement prison. There is also at least one other resettlement prison.
If your Lordships ask on what scale all this is happening, there are 140 at Latchmere House; there were 95 when I last called at Blantyre House and there might be another 100 in the other resettlement prison. One or two units have been started. I visited a resettlement unit in one prison—actually in Canterbury Prison—for 20 people. It is all a bagatelle, really, compared with the problem of coping with 90,000 prisoners, we are told, leaving during the year. I fear that

463
the Government have hardly begun. Here, I am not blaming Mr. Howard—I am not blaming anybody in particular—but I am just looking to the future. This is the way forward. I know that we cannot discuss this tonight but I hope that sometime in the future we shall be told that some steps are being taken. However, it will have to be on a different scale altogether from the tit-bits that I have just mentioned.
No doubt there is some excellent voluntary work being done, in NACRO, Apex and the New Bridge, with which I have been associated for so many years. But all that merely touches the fringe of the problem. We shall never get any real advance in aftercare until we have a statutory arrangement that when you leave prison some authority—it would be the Probation Service no doubt, but in collaboration with the Prison Service—takes responsibility for trying to look after you. Such a system does not exist at present.
At present, resettlement and aftercare are hardly beginning. What is going on is good—in my experience, very good—but at the moment it is just scratching the surface of the problem. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, will not be able to deal at any length with this tonight, with 46 speakers, and I may myself have to apologise in case I have to leave before the small hours. However, I would ask him to look beyond the immediate situation and ask himself whether aftercare and resettlement, combined with an effective law and order policy and combined also with constructive prison reform, would not help us to reduce crime.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, we always enjoy listening to the noble Earl. He has a wide range of interests and a huge spectrum is always covered.
We in this House have worked extremely hard and assiduously on this tremendous Bill. We have heard that there are about 152 clauses and 11 schedules. It has been hard work, but we are a revising House, and increasingly so. Some of us, from all parts of your Lordships' House, are not completely content that the age of consent of 21 for homosexuals which has existed for some time should be reduced to 18. I have a suspicion that if we were ever to have a national opinion poll on the issue, most of the mums, grandmums and even great-grandmums would be with us in voting to restore what has existed for some time.
Why should we do that? (Clearly from the debate so far that may not be the only amendment we send back to the other place. Among the many expert lawyers there will be quite strong proposals about updating, revising, making amendments and goodness knows what else. I suspect we shall be spending a long while on the Committee stage of this Bill.) I am advised by the professionals that the sexual impulses of the young, particularly between the ages of 14 and 16, are certainly not crystallised and are even highly unstable. If approached by 20 year-olds, or people even older, they may well be persuaded to experiment. Some young people develop more slowly than others, as we all know from our schooldays. It is possible that even at 18 some
464
are not stabilised. It would seem therefore that we ought at least to invite the other Chamber to think again on this issue. Clearly some legal framework is necessary to discourage the spread of homosexualism. The debate in the other place was pretty muddled, and took place under tremendous pressure. I wonder whether they should not be given a chance to think again. We have seen how confused we all are in this House when we have a free vote, as we shall on this issue. We are never sure which Lobby we should be in until we recognise our friends.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No one tells us.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, no, we are not told. So we are pretty mixed up. The Commons was mixed up and under tremendous pressure. Many MPs, particularly those with small majorities, received letters saying that homosexuals in their constituencies represented 10 per cent. of the electorate—a gross exaggeration by any standards—and that if they did not support the vote for the age of 16 their seats would be at risk. They were under a great deal of pressure.
I went to see the police today. I asked them how many people were marching during the big Commons debate. They told me that about 5,000 left Piccadilly Circus to march towards Parliament on 21st February and that 4,000 arrived here. Many of us saw and heard them. They were noisy and emotional. I asked how many people were injured. The police said that they had to close and lock the gates to New Palace Yard because the crowd was storming it. Many of my friends from the Commons and many of us here could not get our cars out through New Palace Yard. People's cars had to be driven out through our exit. Six policemen were seriously wounded and one sergeant was knocked unconscious. I am glad to say that he has recovered. On 14th March, the second time the matter was debated, 4,000 people were counted marching to support the proposal.
This is not a party political matter. We have supporters on all sides of the House. Some friends argue that, as the democratic vote is given at 18, it is right that people should be able to choose their sexual futures at the age of 18. But that is not a logical argument. If there were certain ages when one could start drinking beer or whisky, or taking marijuana when it came into fashion, there would be an awful muddle. So I do not accept the argument relating to when one can vote. And how one votes can change; otherwise we would all be sitting on this side for ever and Members opposite would always sit there. One can change one's vote, but once one has been seduced into homosexual practices one may stay that way for the rest of one's life.
I looked also at how the Crown Prosecution Service operates, because it will be responsible for activating the law. The system has become strict. I looked through the code under which the CPS operates. It is a strict code. The prosecution must be in the "public interest". How the hell does one prove what is in the public interest? If two young people are found in a public lavatory, is it in the public interest to prosecute them? A Written Question was asked relating to how many prosecutions

465
had taken place under the CPS code in the past three years. The answer was that for the whole country there were nine in 1990, 10 in 1991 and 12 in 1992. Sir Ivan Lawrence, MP, also asked the Home Secretary how many males under the age of 21 had been prosecuted, and prosecuted and convicted, over the past 10 years. The answer was "practically none".
It is not as if this involves a tremendous legal operation. We should remind ourselves that this is the year of the family. The House should do nothing, should take not one small step, to make homosexual behaviour easier. We should support all family relationships because many fall apart. People form new relationships, and the family suffers.
The country looks to the House of Lords to act traditionally. We should give the other place a chance to rethink the way it acted last time and to take a more estimable position.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I start by echoing most warmly the congratulations which have already been expressed to my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie on a thoughtful and practical maiden speech, coming, as it did, from someone with a long and close knowledge of the situation relating to juvenile offenders in Scotland. I note in passing that the Bill does not extend secure units to Scotland. It may well be that my noble friend will have some further advice to offer us in Committee on how effective are the comparative arrangements for young people in Scotland compared with what is proposed in the Bill for England and Wales. We greatly look forward to hearing from him on that subject.
Every speaker has agreed that we are right to express concern about crime, and I do so also, but my concern is largely about the causes of crime and not about picking up the pieces after the crimes have been committed. The Bill is concerned entirely with picking up the pieces, and there is nothing in the Bill that touches upon the causes of crime, as my noble friend Lord Wigoder pointed out. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wants to see crime reduced, as he said he did at the conclusion of his remarks, then let him do something about the causes of crime; let him not increase crime, which is what the Bill does, by criminalising acts that are at present within the law, and by detaining young offenders in new academies of crime which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has reminded us, will cost the taxpayer at least £30 million a year to operate. Those expensive anterooms of the penal system, as they have been described, are the product of Conservative fundamentalism.
All research, including studies by the Government's own departments, condemned the locking up of youngsters and proves that it turns them into recidivists. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, appealed to the Secretary of State to listen to the voices of all those who are proposing sensible and practical alternatives, such as those she mentioned tonight. I only hope that he will be prepared to do so; although he never listens to the advice of his civil servants, preferring generally to rely on his own unaided prejudices. That is how we get to this Bill. Through the columns of a newspaper today he
466
had the temerity to warn your Lordships that we should not throw out any of the crackpot ideas in this Bill. I hope that we shall disregard that warning and do our duty, as we swore when we took an Oath in this House.
The long list of speakers in today's debate is a measure of the acute anxieties which the Bill has aroused among professionals and people with a great deal of experience but to whom the Government have turned a deaf ear. We have all been deluged with representations powerfully argued by professional organisations. If one attempted a comprehensive analysis of the contents of the Bill it would be difficult to know where to start. During the few minutes that I intend to speak I shall concentrate on only four issues: aggravated trespass, trespassory assemblies, squatters and gypsies.
Perhaps I may begin with aggravated trespass, which is a new offence and a loaded expression if ever there were one. Most people will agree that where a large number of people assemble on land to which the public have no right of access —causing damage, for example, to scheduled monuments or preventing residents from going about their lawful activities—the police should have the power to remove them. But Clauses 63 to 66 go much further than that. Clause 63 criminalises the presence of the trespasser, making him liable to three months' imprisonment if he does anything to obstruct the lawful activities of others on the land or on adjoining land. Under Clause 64, if a police officer reasonably believes that a person is about to obstruct or disrupt activities on the land or on adjoining land, and he directs the person to leave, that person commits another offence which is also punishable by three months' imprisonment.
My noble friend Lord Hutchinson reminded us of the offence of "sus". Some of us fought hard to remove that offence from the calendar of offences. I remind your Lordships that it provided the police with power to arrest and charge a person when they had reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was about to commit an offence. After the prolonged arguments about that offence, I thought that it had been agreed that such a provision was dangerous and unsound, yet here we are having it reintroduced in another guise.
The kinds of activity which are caught under those provisions are very broad. Anti-hunt protesters, who have already been mentioned, motorway campaigners, environmentalists and even people taking part in ordinary protest meetings—for example, outside the local town hall —are swept into the net. In Committee in another place an example was given of the residents of a certain place trying to prevent the demolition of a 250 year-old tree. Mr. Maclean, the Minister who replied to the debate, said that it was a ridiculously hypothetical question. However, it seemed to me a perfectly legitimate one. The Minister went on to point out that the chief officer of police had to consider the law and make up his mind on various points.
Under Clause 65, the police must decide whether an assembly is intended to be held; whether it is to be held on land to which the public have no or restricted right of access; whether it is likely to be held without the permission of the occupier of the land; if not, whether

467
it may conduct itself in a way that exceeds the occupier's permission or the public's right of access; whether it may result in serious disruption to the life of the community; whether the land on which the assembly is to be held, or a building or monument on it is of historical, architectural, archaeological or scientific importance; and, if so, whether the assembly may result in significant damage to those important objects.
If the Minister was saying that because of the complexity of the decision which has to be made by a chief officer nobody can predict the outcome in any particular case, there is indeed a very serious objection to Clause 65: it is not formulated in sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct. That is a point to which I hope to return in Committee.
Finally in respect of Clause 65, "trespassory" is not defined. "Trespass", "trespassing" and "trespasser" are defined and the exclusion of "trespassory" from Clause 56(9) may be taken as an indication that it is not to be construed in accordance with the definition of "trespass", which in any case is circular. That may not seem to be too critical, but Clause 65 first provides that where the chief officer of police reasonably believes that any assembly is likely to have the characteristics there defined he may apply to the council for an order prohibiting trespassory assemblies. "An assembly" is defined as an assembly of more than 20 persons. That is another of those circular definitions which contains material ambiguities. But it cannot mean that any 21 people physically present on the land qualify because otherwise an assembly of 20 persons, which was lawful, would be made unlawful if another person arrived to join them. For example, if I write to 19 people inviting them to join me in a protest against a particular construction site on the M.11 and quite fortuitously another person arrives with either the same or different objectives —that person may wish to demonstrate in favour of the motorway—then there would be 21 people present. Does that constitute an assembly or do the Government intend that those 21 people should be there for a common purpose, because that is not part of the definition of "an assembly" in the Bill?
At the very least, let us avoid making those offences imprisonable. The Home Secretary, in his eyrie at the top of Queen Anne's Gate, believes that putting more people in prison for longer periods will reduce crime. This morning it was reported that 11 prisons are overcrowded by 40 per cent. or more, as the noble Baroness has already mentioned. The prison population has increased by nearly 5,000 since February 1993. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who reminded us that we have the largest prison population per head in Western Europe. To make those prisons overflow with trespassers would be to compound the folly.
The Government also criminalise squatters who will be liable to six months' imprisonment if they fail to comply with the proposed possession order within 24 hours. That is the same penalty as is provided for child pornographers. Squatters are to be made liable to six months' imprisonment. Do the Government believe it to
468
be right that a squatter should be penalised with the same six months' imprisonment as somebody who is guilty of child pornography?
Very few squatters occupy private residences needed by the owner—in a 1991 survey, two out of 2,213 premises—but if they do, surely they can be removed without being sent to prison? Squatting does at least highlight the failure of market forces to provide accommodation for many people, whatever the Prime Minister may think. How does he know what makes people homeless? It draws public attention to the scandalous waste of empty properties, which could be dealt with, if we had the sense, by giving any local authority or housing association the power to apply for something like an interim possession order and to use unoccupied premises temporarily for housing, until the owner could show the court that he genuinely needed the premises for another purpose.
I turn now to the provisions regarding gypsies in Clauses 72 to 75, and I am grateful for the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for what I am about to say. I start by observing that it might have been courteous if the Government had at least mentioned their consultations to me, even though it was their intention all along to destroy what had been carefully and painfully built up over the quarter of a century since the 1968 Act. I sometimes wonder if the Conservative Party might find a better name for itself when so much of its programme consists of undoing the work of previous generations, and replacing it with untried remedies based on its unquestioning belief in the virtues of private enterprise to cope with every social problem.
The 1968 Act imposed an obligation on local authorities to provide adequate accommodation for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area, and a gypsy was defined as a person of nomadic habit of life, without regard to ethnic origin. In effect, anybody who lived in a mobile home or vehicle was a gypsy. At that time, the traditional stopping places of the gypsies were being swallowed up by the suburbs, and sites used by gypsies which fail to meet the new standards imposed by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 were being closed. Gypsies had no alternative but to camp unlawfully on the roadsides, antagonising local residents and being harried from pillar to post by the police and local authorities. That is the situation to which the Government's proposals would return those gypsies who are not yet accommodated on official sites.
The Act was a bargain between the gypsy community and the local authorities. The authorities would provide enough sites for all the gypsies living in or travelling through their area, and when that had been done, the Government would give the local authorities extra powers to deal with unauthorised encampments, known as designation. At the time, the Government gave an undertaking not to use these powers in such a way as to produce patchworks in counties, with some parts designated and others not; but afterwards they reneged on that promise.
Local authorities proceeded to implement the Act albeit very slowly. They were particularly slow in the counties where there were prolonged arguments

469
between county and district about the suitability of particular sites. But there was a steady improvement, particularly after the Cripps Report, when in 1979 the Government provided 100 per cent. funding. It is estimated that, today, there are some 6,000 mobile homes on sites provided under the Act, with another 4,500 pitches still needed. More would have been done if the Government had not sabotaged the efforts of the local authorities. For example, Hertfordshire was going to provide three sites but it is now going ahead with only one because of the withdrawal of the 100 per cent. grant. Hertfordshire was the subject of a direction made by the Department of the Environment in 1988 to provide an extra 100 pitches, but has still failed to do so. Yet, no penalties are being imposed on it. It seems that there is one law for local authorities which have failed to implement the 1968 Act and a completely different law for the gypsies who will be thrown on the roadside by the provisions.
Everyone welcomed the Government's review of the 1968 Act because they wanted to see why it was taking so long to complete the task. Some points were obvious: the larger family size of the gypsy community meant that the demand of the gypsies themselves was increasing. Moreover, some people who were not from the traditional gypsy background were taking to a nomadic way of life, though how many is a matter for speculation. But everyone was astounded when the Government's proposals were published. The Magistrates' Association, the Police Federation, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Association of District Councils, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Farmers' Union, and many more, wanted the duty to be preserved. Many also mentioned that the 100 per cent. funding was cost-effective compared with the alternative.
Over the last few weeks I have been deluged with letters from organisations and individuals, every single one of which opposes the repeal of the 1968 Act. There will be occasion to refer to their views in detail at later stages. I simply note here the powerful submissions by children's organisations including Save the Children Fund. I really cannot imagine how the government have the nerve to masquerade as a party of family unity and introduce proposals which are going to lead, inevitably, to families being shattered and more children being taken into care.
I know that, when they have ignored the chorus of criticisms from experts all over the country, the Government are not likely to pay any attention to anything said in this House. Therefore, I make no appeal to the Front Bench opposite to think again. I appeal to your Lordships to listen to the voice of reason and humanity and to join me in throwing out those objectionable provisions when the time comes. In many respects, this is a bad and misguided Bill. It is our duty to ensure that, when we have finished with it in a few weeks' time, we have eradicated from it the hallmarks of Tory bigotry.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I do not usually waste your Lordships' time by speaking on Second Readings. However, I intervene on this occasion because I had the very doubtful privilege of moving the amendment which became Section 39 of the 1986 Act which is to be updated in Part V of the Bill. As an aside to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, perhaps I may say that I agree with him as regards maturity. I know that I was totally sexually immature at the age of 13. Perhaps I still am, though I do not regret it for one minute.
I welcome the Bill, especially Part V. I should like to thank the Government and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, for taking note and for then taking action on the concerns expressed by farmers and country people over New Age travellers and raves. It has taken a little time to do so but, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers and his colleagues have since 1986 pointed out to your Lordships, there are considerable problems involved when dealing with New Age travellers.
What does society do when the law moves them on and takes away the vehicles which are their homes? During the passage of the Bill, I hope that your Lordships will produce some solutions to that social and humanitarian problem. I believe that it is the Churches' duty, for a change, to have some constructive views. My feeling is that doing away with the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will not help; indeed, we might build on that Act to deal with New Age travellers. Surely the Ministry of Defence has some spare land. For once, on this matter, I find myself in agreement with my noble kinsman Lord Avebury—perhaps for the first time in 60 years since we squabbled over who had the prime right to Penrhos beach.
It may be that I shall support some additions, and indeed alterations, to Part V, but my overriding concern is that it can never, never be right to allow anyone to break the law making an excuse that they do so because: they have children or indeed dogs who will be inconvenienced or dispossessed of their usually unroadworthy caravan. That way lies anarchy.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I fully endorse the authoritative speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The first 15 clauses of the Bill set out the Government's proposed regime for persistent offenders aged from 12 to 14. The heart of the scheme is the detention in secure training centres of certain offenders for periods of up to a year.
I naturally support the Government's concern for the victims of the crimes of these children. I am impressed that the Government are prepared to spend more than £30 million a year on these persistent juvenile offenders. But I fear the Government's proposals will prove only a short-term solution during the actual period of detention. The children emerging from the secure training centres are highly likely to re-offend. Thus, the longer-term result will only be a fresh round of victims.
The Bill permits a magistrates' court to impose a secure training order on a 12 to 14 year-old if the child has been convicted of three or more imprisonable

471
offences and has either breached a supervision order or has been convicted of an imprisonable offence while under a supervision order. The period of detention will be from three months to a year, followed by an equivalent period of supervision.
The Government have announced their intention to provide five secure training centres, each housing 40 offenders. Apparently private enterprise will build and run these centres. One aspect of this whole plan causes me immediate concern. The statistics on re-offending indicate that the courts are likely to impose secure training orders on a small proportion of girls. Taking an educated guess, girls will probably represent 5 per cent. of the 200 juveniles to be housed. Thus, there may be 10 girls in these centres.
The Home Office has indicated that any girls will probably be spread throughout the five centres. That would mean an average of 38 boys and two girls in each centre. How will their well-being be guaranteed? I should be most grateful if the Minister, when he replies, would say exactly what is the Government's policy on girls in the secure training centres.
Turning to the main point of the general dangers of custody for children, all studies, as has been said, indicate high re-conviction rates following custody and secure detention. For example, the 1988 Home Office green paper, Punishment, Custody and the Community, said:
"Most young offenders grow out of crime as they become more mature and responsible. They need encouragement and help to become law-abiding. Even a short period of custody is quite likely to confirm them as criminals, particularly if they acquire new criminal skills from more sophisticated offenders. They see themselves labelled as criminals and behave accordingly".
Nonetheless, with some juvenile offenders, detention seems the only resort. But detention in one of these new centres —far from home—will mean, as has been said, that the child is cut off from family and home social services. Judged by the example of the equivalent regime in Ireland, this will lead to disaster. The experience in the Dublin institution for 12 to 16 year-old persistent offenders shows a re-conviction rate within two years of leaving the centre of 94 per cent.
A better solution would be the use of small local authority secure units in which families and local authority services can provide a benign influence. Currently there are 290 such places for young people and the Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, have recently announced plans to increase the number by 170. With a small further increase in numbers, the local authorities should be able to cater for all the persistent young offenders likely to require custody.
The 1978 Dartington Social Research Unit Study, Locking up Children, found that of 587 young boys who had mainly been held in local authority secure units, 76 per cent. re-offended within two years. More recent research by the Dartington unit indicates that social service efforts which intensively address the family situation of the young offender are the most likely to achieve some success. Such efforts bring down the re-conviction rate to 60 per cent.
472
The Dartington statistics, compared with the Dublin statistics, suggest that the use of local authority secure accommodation could reduce the re-offending rate by some 35 per cent. Thirty-five per cent. fewer victims of such persistent offenders would represent a huge improvement on the likely outcome of the Government's secure training scheme.
Another troubling aspect of the Bill is the criterion of three or more imprisonable offences before receiving a secure training order. That seems imprecise, as the gravity of the required offences is not spelled out. Doubtless many secure training orders will be imposed where there is no alternative. But some offenders could better be dealt with by other methods in the community which have a better record of preventing re-conviction. Those include intensive supervised activity programmes, fostering and good residential care.
I believe that the way forward for persistent juvenile offenders—always bearing in mind the need to reduce the problem for victims—is by local authority secure accommodation and in some cases by other methods in the community. I hope that the Government will think again.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, like others of your Lordships I should like to speak about the so-called abolition of the accused's right of silence. However, I shall do so briefly because so much has already been said.
There is a major and misleading misconception in this piece of verbal shorthand. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has already commented, there is nothing in the Bill which removes an accused's right to remain silent whether at the police station or at the trial. There is nothing in the Bill which compels anyone to answer accusations against him or her, or indeed to answer any questions at all. There is nothing in the Bill which requires an accused to incriminate himself or herself; and, above all, there is nothing in the Bill which removes the onus of proof from the prosecution or the presumption of innocence from the accused. I have to confess that I found it difficult to understand the very strong words of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, on these matters.
Another misconception was voiced by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he spoke on 23rd November. He said:
"What is proposed is the abolition of a factor which has been part of our judicial system for many centuries".—(Official Report, 23/11/93; col. 150.]
My Lords, no, it has not. On the contrary, the first statute of Westminster of 1275 legalised the torture of defendants who refused to plead. Heavy weights were placed on them until they were crushed or submitted. That is a procedure which I believe would not now be permitted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Although I would like to hope that the provision had fallen into disuse long before, the measure was actually still law until it was abolished in 1772, 500 years later. It was replaced by the assumption that a prisoner who remained silent had pleaded guilty. It was not until as recently as 1832 that this was reversed and silence was

473
taken as a plea of not guilty. So far from there having been a right of silence for centuries, the rights of the accused to defend himself at all were severely curtailed. Until the 18th century, prisoners could not be represented by counsel in cases of treason or felony. Until less than 100 years ago, in most cases the accused was forced to remain silent as he did not have the elementary right to give evidence on his own behalf.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, said in his excellent maiden speech, the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, which finally allowed an accused to give evidence, made it clear that the failure of the accused to take advantage of this new right was not to be subject to comment by the prosecution. However, the same Act gave the judge power to comment in suitable cases about the accused's failure to give evidence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice ruled against a silent defendant only four months ago.
Defining what is a suitable case on which the judge might comment has provided a substantial source of fees to the legal profession for 100 years. Perhaps it is now time to move on. The prosecution would be rightly castigated, indeed its lawyers would be disciplined, if they withheld relevant evidence from the jury. The fact that the defendant failed, before the trial and with due safeguards, to give any explanation of his conduct or to answer when questioned is a material fact which should not be concealed from the jury.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the same speech, threatened us with "substantial and weighty opposition" from his side of the House. Perhaps noble Lords opposite have forgotten about the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which compels a defendant to give advance notice of an alibi. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, refer to this matter. That Act was introduced by a Labour Government led by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, now of the Liberal Democrats, and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, both served in that Government and in fact they were both Home Secretary in the year the Act was passed.
Twenty years later, the Criminal Justice Act 1987 made it an imprisonable offence to refuse to answer questions by the Serious Fraud Office. Under the police and criminal justice legislation of the same year, advance notice has to be given of any expert evidence that the defence intends to call. So, despite the knee-jerk outcry from the civil liberties industry, the end of the world has not come or, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the heavens have not fallen in and the country has not become a police state.
We can go even further back than 1987 or 1967. The Road Traffic Act 1930, 64 years ago, required a person to disclose the name of the driver of a vehicle, which might very well involve self incrimination. That law is still in force. I hope that we shall hear nothing more of this plea for the good old days that never existed and that we shall examine this part of the Bill as a serious attempt to balance the scales of justice.
For an innocent person to be wrongly convicted is an injustice. But it is an equal injustice if a guilty person is acquitted because of the fictitious suppression of a very material fact.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. She said that it is an equal injustice for a guilty person to be acquitted. Has she considered the effects of the injustice of an innocent person being convicted? Those effects are not only on the individual concerned but on society as a whole. Surely the noble Baroness cannot persist in the view that those are equal injustices.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord that it is a serious matter if an innocent person is convicted. But I must also say, having been a victim once myself, that it is a serious matter when a guilty person is acquitted.
There is one other aspect of the Bill which concerns me but with which I shall take up only a few moments of your Lordships' time on this occasion. I am disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with the recent phenomenon of legitimate protests marches or public rallies being taken over by individuals who attend bent on confrontation—persons who equip themselves not with offensive weapons but with balaclavas and ski masks to avoid recognition after they start rioting. I hope that I may be able to introduce an amendment on this point for your Lordships' consideration.
On the whole, I believe that this Bill seeks to redress the balance, which lately has swung too far in favour of failed and discredited theories and against the public interest. I hope that when this House has finished with the Bill—which I warmly welcome—the public will have the better protection which it is Parliament's duty to provide.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the large scope of this Bill has already been described. In common with many of my noble friends, I have to say that I have grave doubts about large parts of it. There will no doubt be plenty of opportunity to explore those doubts at future stages of the Bill.
There is only one matter to which I wish to refer now, and I shall do so very briefly. Partly as a result of a public campaign—and I pay tribute to Ministers for responding to that campaign by facilitating a debate on the issue—the Bill was amended in another place to provide for a change in the homosexual age of consent. Or rather it provided for a change in the age that someone must attain before benefiting from the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults in private that was afforded by the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
I spell out the actual effect of the law, as opposed to relying on the shorthand phrase "age of consent", for a purpose. The 1967 Act established the relevant age as 21. The amendment that was passed by an overwhelming majority in another place, which is now Clause 139 of this Bill, made the age of consent 13 throughout Great Britain; by a later vote, that was extended to Northern Ireland.
Despite the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I have no intention of going through any of

475
the arguments that relate to the homosexual age of consent itself. What I want to say is this. For myself, I am convinced that there should be equality in the law in this area between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I hope to see such equality in the near future. But I do not believe that this is a battle that should be fought all over again in this House. There was a very full debate before the vote in another place. Another place came to a decision—and an overwhelming one. I can see no point in asking noble Lords on this occasion to reconsider the merits of an equal age of consent. On this point I am happy to see that I am in agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield.
It flows from that that I had hoped that no attempt would be made to strike out Clause 139 in order to leave the age of consent unchanged at 21. I say that, knowing that some hold deep convictions on the matter. Such convictions are traditionally and rightly respected in this House. If another place has had its say on a matter of conscience, then this House is of course free to do so as well. But I hope that we shall not wish to do so. I repeat that I speak as one who would like to see an equal age of consent. I have to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, persists in seeking to remove Clause 139, then perhaps we should have a debate which includes the issue of an equal age of consent to give a proper balance to that debate. I point out that in another place far more Members voted in favour of 16 than voted in favour of 21.
It is our role as a revising Chamber to look at the detailed working of Clause 139. I believe that it would be right for us to use our time to look at that issue. The principle of 18 is established. Nevertheless, there may be some further secondary amendments that should be made. For example, the 1967 Act laid down a range of penalties for offences that are dependent largely upon age. We might want to look at those and adjust them.
More importantly, we might want to look at the position of 16 and 17 year-olds under the law as it will be. The tone of the debate in another place showed that protection of the young and vulnerable was uppermost in the minds of almost all who took part. I am sure that that will be the case in this Chamber.
I do not believe that enough people have yet grasped that, because of the structure of the law on homosexual acts, if an age of consent of 18 is decided upon, then those under 18 are left as criminals. Making them criminals lays them open to exploitation and abuse as well as to the stigma of criminality itself. I remind noble Lords that that is not the position of girls under the age of 16. If a man has unlawful sexual intercourse with such a girl, he commits an offence but she does not.
I stray into Committee questions, so at this point I shall sit down.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, everybody in the country is concerned about the level of crime today. Only the criminals will not welcome the Bill as a great step forward in making Britain a safer place in which to live. For too long now we have seen a relaxation of standards, which has led to an unacceptable level of crime. It is not
476
a moment too soon to set right the balance, to restore public confidence in our law and its enforcement, and to return to the traditional values of a law-abiding society.
I welcome the strengthening of the courts' powers in making provision for young offenders. My wife sits on the juvenile bench. I cannot tell your Lordships how often she comes home full of frustration, having had to deal with a string of young offenders, often multiple re-offenders, with both her hands tied behind her back when it comes to sentencing. Of course, those children should never have come before the courts in the first place. But if they are not taught the difference between right and wrong at home, it falls on society to judge them. For that to be effective, it is essential that the powers of the court are adequate or those young people will simply go away laughing and re-offend.
I am disappointed that corporal punishment is no longer an available option. The threat of physical pain was a potent deterrent at school, much more so than the sentences that we hear about today which sometimes seem to end up as overseas holidays. Furthermore, that threat punctured the inflated egos of some children by showing them up in front of their friends.
Part V of the Bill is the section that I am most pleased to see. The powers to deal more effectively with unlawful invasion of private land by New Age travellers and the ability to remove disruptive trespassers from private property are a response to two problems that we, as land owners and country sportsmen, have been seeking to resolve for many years. The Bill goes a long way towards meeting the calls of land owners and sportsmen of Great Britain.
Three years ago New Age travellers descended on a farm near Bala in North Wales. To say that they descended like a plague of locusts would be no exaggeration. Perhaps I may describe briefly what the farmer and his neighbours went through and what was left when the travellers finally departed. About 40 acres of grassland were occupied by somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 hippies for a total period of 15 days. The farmer lost the grazing on that land for some two months as well as losing the silage and hay that would have been cut there. In addition, fences, gates and even small trees were ripped up for firewood. Sheep were killed by the estimated 600 dogs which accompanied the group and village gardens and allotments in the village were cleaned out. The farmer estimates that it cost him in the region of £7,000 to £8,000. At the end of it, there were 22 10-tonne skips of rubbish to be collected and disposed of by the local council. However, perhaps the most surprising fact of all is that there were just a few police prosecutions for minor drug offences and there was not a single vehicle offence, despite the fact that a large proportion of the vehicles used had no current excise disc.
I welcome the reduction from 12 to six in the number of vehicles that must now be present before a senior police officer can take steps to evict trespassers under Clause 51, but I believe that the number is still too high. Often the vehicles are buses, coaches or large caravans. In theory, they could between them contain more than 100 travellers before that clause gives the police powers to act. I sincerely hope that the Government will

477
reconsider the clause and examine whether it is possible to include a minimum number of persons who would have to be present as well as a minimum number of vehicles in order to trigger the clause.
I am equally delighted to see the provisions to criminalise the act of aggravated trespass and to simplify the legal procedure that has to be followed in order for an innocent land owner to regain possession of his land when it has been invaded by New Age travellers. I am satisfied that the genuine rambler who inadvertently loses his way will be well protected by the provisions of the Bill and will not, as some alarmists try to complain, lay himself open to criminal prosecution —unless of course he goes on to attempt to disrupt some lawful activity taking place on the land. Merely being there by accident he runs no such risks.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, argued that this part of the Bill discriminates against hunt saboteurs while making no such legislation against those who hunt, shoot or fish. The answer is glowingly obvious: those who are hunting, shooting or fishing are pursuing a lawful activity with the permission of the land owner and probably paid a good deal of money for the privilege. I am sure all noble Lords recall the tale of Winnie the Pooh in which his friend Piglet had a piece of broken board outside his house which had "Trespassers W" on it. It was, he said, his grandfather's name and was short for "Trespassers Will". The Bill will not only nail back the broken piece of the sign that says "be prosecuted", but it will give the police the powers they need to carry that out.
Having welcomed so much of the Bill I share the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield about the proposal to repeal Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. As a borough councillor I am acutely aware of the problems that have to be addressed and, indeed, of the Government's reasons for wanting to repeal the legislation. But I am concerned that requiring gypsies to find their own sites through the normal planning system will not result in a long-term solution to the need to provide permanent sites for gypsies. From time immemorial, gypsies, like magpies, have acquired a reputation for a magnetism regarding property other than their own. I do not blame anyone who says, "Not in my back yard, thank you", but our country is too small for us to hide our heads in the sand and the bare fact is that they have to go into someone's back yard. While I am delighted to give the Government my wholehearted support in their insistence that this element of society pays its way like the rest of us, I have yet to be convinced that the repeal of Part II of the Caravan Sites Act is the best answer.
There is no obligation on anyone to become a criminal in the first place; it is their conscious decision to contravene the accepted mores of society, and from the moment they take that decision they understand that they run the risk of detection and punishment. Until we can emulate the thought police and ensure that our detection rate is 100 per cent. we have to set the level of punishment sufficiently high to deter as many as possible, and this Bill contains significant advances in that direction.
9.52 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliain: My Lords, this late in the evening I want to mention just two subjects in the Bill, the first being Clause 139. I am afraid I was not able to come to terms with the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with whom I totally disagree. I hope to be able to discuss this subject without prejudice or partial affection, though I have some concern in the matter. I feel comfort in the fact that I am in concert with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield.
It cannot possibly be argued that boys can be compared with girls in the issue of gay rights. It is obvious that girls of 16 can have babies and boys of that age can be the father. But a boy of 18, let alone 16, cannot possibly assume the responsibilities of a father. He cannot sustain the parental duty, and that is obvious There is no reason therefore to assume that those two beings can be similarly compared.
At the same time we are proposing that such boys should be subjected to sex with predatory, elderly, promiscuous homosexuals. That must be stopped. It is our duty to protect our young. A recent leader in The Times said,
"It is a mark of a civilised society that it values the interests of its young more than abstract liberties".
We must live up to that premise. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said—and it was said the other day by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop —sex in the Christian world is allowed within the bonds of the marriage vows but is not accepted outside those vows.
Equally, there is the question of the adolescence of young boys. They are going to experience and experiment with their awakening sexuality. Certainly, between boys of the same age there can be no useful and effective law. Only school and parental rules can control these matters. We should not be swayed by a minority who lobby so vociferously and dangerously outside the Palace of Westminster that 28 police vans were required the other day to control them. That only shows the danger of considering their claim. We have a duty to our young and we have to ensure that they grow up in a normal heterosexual atmosphere which recognises what is normal, and we have a duty too to demonstrate the self-evident fact that the 1 per cent. of the population who are homosexual have a case to be considered for their personal health and safety but should not browbeat others into accepting the abnormal as normal.
I am sorely tempted to take a leaf from the late noble and gallant Lord, the father of my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who once moved that the age of consent be raised to 80. That would solve the matter very simply. I am mostly concerned with the act of buggery, which is unsafe, unnatural and unproductive. It is unsafe in that 75 per cent. of deaths from AIDS come from bisexual or homosexual activities. The fact that is unnatural is only slightly less obvious than the fact that it is unproductive. I shall enlarge on that point further in Committee. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is questionable whether this clause should even be in the Bill. The speeches of noble and learned Lords have

479
largely ignored the subject, which perhaps only confirms the suggestion that noble and learned Lords do not think it should be in the Bill at all.
The second part of my interest is where I come to terms with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and other noble Lords who have spoken on Clause 75 with regard to the treatment of gypsies. I have had representations from Wiltshire County Council, which feels very strongly that the measures are most unfair to those councils like itself which have acted on the Government's previous proposal in the 1968 Act. There are insufficient authorised sites, so, besides creating homelessness by moving the gypsies on, they will be committing an offence automatically as a result of the clause. If the 1968 Act was enforced on councils by the Government, as the Government already have powers to do, there would, without introducing new legislation, be enough sites to prevent gypsies committing an offence involuntarily.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, is said to be at the cutting edge of the criminal justice system and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, considers herself to be at the coalface, I think it can be properly inferred that I am a piece of coal. I speak from the point of view of the defendant. Among the speakers tonight I probably have a unique experience of that problem.
I take up the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the criminal justice system has to be fair and has to be seen to be fair; and then there is no problem with the right of silence argument. But the question is whether it is fair. I would argue that it is distinctly defendant unfriendly and at times defendant hostile.
I can illustrate the problem by saying that there is a cancer eating away at the heart of the criminal justice system. That cancer is evidence abuse in one form or another, hence my Question earlier this afternoon. Last year there were about 400 cases where convictions were overturned and the year before there were about 300. It is estimated that this year there will be 500 or 600. The vast majority of them were cases in which the evidence was overturned because it was unsafe in one form or another.
I intend to illustrate that point by three examples which come straight from the Guinness trial. For reference, I was arrested in March 1988 and acquitted in July 1993. That is nearly five-and-a-half years. Any criminal justice system which subjects its citizens to that sort of treatment is unlikely to be fair. I was charged with making a false market and with issuing a false document. During the trial I came across numerous pieces of evidence of abuse. I shall speak about three of them this evening.
The first is indicative of the problem, the second is illustrative of the problem and the third—well, noble Lords must judge for themselves. The first evidence which I produce for noble Lords is the practice of writing witness statements in advance of any meeting with the witness. That occurred on numerous occasions
480
in the Guinness case and in particular as regards the three witnesses who were chosen to give evidence as being shareholders in Distillers. Out of the 31 witness statements that emanated from that quarter, a majority of 15 or 16 were identical. They began with a predicated question which asked, if I had known that the acts complained of were illegal, would I have accepted the offer?
It was quite clear that these statements were presented without any pre-conversation with the witnesses and most of them signed blindly. When we talked to them they did not realise what it was they had signed. It cannot be right in any criminal justice system to put words into a witness's mouth on that scale. I am aware that certain Treasury solicitors think it perfectly proper to edit witness statements. However, it cannot necessarily make a system of that kind fair.
The second and illustrative point concerns a forensic report, which was produced, after much argument, as regards tapes which were to be used in evidence. First, the Serious Fraud Office denied the existence of any forensic report, but we persisted and eventually it turned up. However, on reading it it was quite clear that something was missing. Despite going back numerous times to the Serious Fraud Office and the police, there was always a denial that anything was missing and it was said that the evidence we had was all the evidence. But on the day of the voir dire when the tapes were discussed a new document was produced which was the forensic report. It had a missing paragraph in it. Perhaps I may read what it said:
"I draw your attention to Question 3 on the questionnaire regarding the continuity evidence. This always seems to be exploited by the defence, and by the number of signatures on this label it seems to be well travelled".
That piece of evidence had been edited out of the original document without any reference at all to the court or to the defence. It had been handed over as a perfectly proper original document. Given that I was already charged with issuing a false document, I found that a little difficult to take.
However, the third point is more serious than all of that. In December 1988 there was a secret (and it is still a secret) tribunal. It was a licensed dealers' tribunal which investigated the activities of the broker through whom I had conducted one of my two Guinness transactions. This tribunal was chaired by a Member of this House (a judge) who had two lay City assessors sitting with him. It was a Roskill-type tribunal with no jury. It took evidence under oath and cross-examination, and with a judgment of crystal clarity it decided in December 1988 that there had been no false market and no breach of Section 151—two of the charges which I still faced at the time.
That judgment is still a secret. It has never been revealed; it had not been revealed to the Department of Trade and Industry, which was conducting the main Guinness investigation. It had not been revealed to the Bank of England, which saw fit to issue me with a "fit and proper person" letter based on those charges. It has still not been revealed other than by my sending the documents to those people. It cannot be right in any criminal justice system that that sort of judicial decision should be kept hidden for such a long time. It was

481
actually produced on the last working day before Christmas at five o'clock in the afternoon—2,000 pages, 54 days into my trial and 300 days after I started appearing in court.
It is hardly surprising that on that basis there is something seriously wrong with the criminal justice system. But I would ask your Lordships not simply to rely on my experience. I have here in my hand the transcript of an interview, an interview which was used as a statement and on the basis of which a somewhat ethnically challenged young man was held inside for many months. Let me read one of the paragraphs just to give your Lordships the flavour of the statement. It is about one of the defendants in the Broadwater Farm case, the savage murder of PC Keith Blakelock. This is what the statement says:
"There were more crowds throwing stones and cans and whatever at the police. I threw cans and stones and whatever was on the floor—and I threw a petrol bomb. They were hidden behind a fence and there was a bloke there who was pulling them over. They were stored in a green Unigate crate. I didn't know the bloke but he had a green serge Tortini tracksuit, white with red colour and stripes on the sleeves and a red or blue sign. The bottoms had red stripes down the sides and had two black zips at the bottom of the legs. He was wearing a hat, black silky with a red ribbon round it. He had a rough beard".
In this 50-page statement he goes on to describe not only the throwing of petrol bombs and the firing of guns but being present at the actual murder of the poor unfortunate policeman. He identifies 27 individuals on that scale of description. Some months after the production of this statement his defence lawyers established incontrovertibly that not only was he not capable of being there on the night but that he was not there: he was miles away. He had not been present at any of the actions he had described. If the police—and there were three policeman involved in this—can write a statement of that detail under the protection of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, it is very difficult to see how fairness comes into the situation.
I think one has to go a little higher to see where the problem, or part of it, lies. In my view, part of the problem lies with the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). There is an illusion being perpetrated on the public in this court—the illusion that there are three judges who decide a particular case. That is not so. There is one judge, with two sitting with him to assist. He can if he wants—and he very often does—overrule his colleagues. It seems to me to be a waste of manpower to have a system that does that.
This was actually quite relevant because the right to silence was involved in the Guinness trials. If I may remind your Lordships, the inspectors went into Guinness in December 1986, and in January 1987 they suspected criminal offences. The inspectors interviewed everyone and then they started to arrest people. They said that they wished to use the interviews as "confession evidence" against the defendants. But those interviews were given for a different purpose and for different reasons. They were unprotected by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and they were used in a hostile manner against each of the defendants. In fact, in connection with one of the defendants in the first trial,
482
Mr. Parnes, prosecuting counsel agreed that he could not continue with the case if he could not use that evidence.
We took the issue to the Court of Appeal. That is why I say that there is a problem there. I shall read the penultimate sentence of the judgment:
"There was, in our judgment"—
note the word "our"—
"sound reason for admitting the so-called confessions having regard to the relevant legislation which Parliament has deliberately enacted, albeit that that may appear to tend towards unfairness especially when set against all relevant provisions in the 1984 Act".
That is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If the Court of Appeal will not uphold the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, what chance is there for anyone down the line to do just that?
The problem is spreading. The Government are putting their head in the sand. They say that the problem does not exist, but it does exist and it is real. The problem probably arises from a statement by another noble and learned Lord, one of our greatest equity judges, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who said in 1980 when dealing with a civil action concerning the Birmingham 6:
"If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats and that their convictions were erroneous … This is such an appalling vista that every person in the land would say 'it cannot be right that these actions should go any further'".
And he stopped the case. Eight years later he was to say again about the Birmingham 6 in another case:
"It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English Judicial System be impugned".
The integrity of the English judicial system is what protects the defendant. If there is no integrity, we cannot give up the right to silence.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a little difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Spens, but I can say one thing to him, and that is that he is not the only one who has quarrelled with the law. I have been court martialled, admittedly 45 years ago, and found guilty. The experience of one's sword with its point towards one when one goes in to learn the finding is quite awe inspiring. I am certain that the noble Lord has never had that experience. I have to go on to say that I had no quarrel with the system or the people. The only thing that I did not like was the sentence. But, happily, as I had been advised beforehand would be likely to be the case, the Admiralty reduced the sentence to what I thought was reasonable, and so I went on to have a happy naval career thereafter.
We need to read with care what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, told us, and perhaps pick out a few threads from it which are serious. As I heard it, I find it difficult to accept. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers on a succinct and cheerful introduction to this long and detailed Bill. I should like also to congratulate the Government on tackling the serious problems of law and order which have grown during the past 10 years. As a result of other changes in other legislation it has surprised me in my role in connection with the magistrates on the Isle of Wight for the past 10

483
years or so, that during the past five years the number of offences has increased while the number of cases brought before the courts has decreased. That strikes me as very strange indeed. I am not sure that the Bill will have any bearing on that. It is odd that when crime becomes worse fewer cases come to court.
As was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the underlying concern is for the lack of understanding about what is right and what is wrong of many persons in our community, including, sadly, several very young boys. Introducing new laws is only part of the answer to that. A greater acceptance of responsibility for teaching what is right and wrong by parents, grandparents, teachers, neighbours and in fact the whole community is also needed. That was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Whatever we do in the Bill — and I am sure that we will get something useful out of it—we must somehow create a pattern in which family and local responsibilities for the behaviour of people become built into the country as a whole. There must not be a feeling of, "Oh well, there are so many little boys who are stealing motor cars—they are doing it at the age of 12. No doubt in five years time there will be others doing it at the age of 10". We must not have everyone saying, "The Government must do something". That is wrong; I am sure that it must be done by the community. We must try to organise things in a way in which the community not only sees its responsibilities but does something.
It is clear from what many noble Lords have said —some with great authority—that there is much doubt about whether the Government's many proposals are the best way of tackling the various problems. That is so even if the problems themselves are broadly agreed, which I detect. It is probably true to say that in some areas there is much dissension not only with what the Government have proposed but among your Lordships as to the approach to the solution. I hope that we shall have productive Committee and Report stages in this House and that we shall not be sitting well into August in order to cope.
As regards my contribution to the discussions, I shall be largely but not exclusively advised by the Magistrates' Association. The details of its advice are best left to Committee and later stages. Suffice it to say that I too have doubts about children of 12, 13 and 14 being too far away from home when sent to a secure training centre. My noble friend Lord Ferrers commented on having relatively few training centres with 40 people rather than many centres with only 12 people. That frightened me slightly because if 12 year-olds are sent from the Isle of Wight to, say, Bristol their parents may not be able to go there easily because they may not have a motor car or the trains may not go in the right direction. I cannot believe that it is right that parents should be too far from their children who are in a secure training centre, but I believe that it is right that such children should be in a secure training centre. How we cope with that is another matter.
I also believe that some of the provisions for bail go too far. Any automatic refusal of bail, as in Clause 24, is bad in principle. Surely it must be for the court to
484
decide whether a person charged with any offence, however serious, is under the particular circumstances of a particular case to be granted or not granted bail. For that reason also I shall argue against the clause relating to police bail.
We have heard a great deal about the inferences to be drawn from the silence of the accused. I would not go as far as many noble Lords argue; in particular, those wholly in favour of the right to silence of any accused. However, I do believe that there need to be stronger safeguards than at present in the Bill—a matter which has been raised. We shall be in a better position if we can find a way of strengthening the relevant clauses to provide those safeguards.
On a more personal note, I very much support what my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Clanwilliam said about the age of private homosexual acts being returned to 21. I think that even that is too young. It is very cruel to subject young men to the kind of pressures to which they can be subject when they become involved in a wholly unnatural association. I hope that we shall be able to reach a result on that. I certainly do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said. I hope that we may be able to debate that at a later stage.
I have other points to make for the improvement of the Bill but they are of less significance and are best left wholly to Committee stage. With those reservations, I have no hesitation in commending the Bill as a whole to the House.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should like to make a single brief point about Clause 139 and the age of consent. I shall leave aside questions of morality which have already been debated this evening. It seems to me personally that there is a practical objection to the clause; namely, that it takes no account of the question of AIDS. It does not discriminate in any way between homosexual practices which are no hazard to health and AIDS, which certainly is a hazard.
Many years ago, the Wolfenden Committee asked itself and considered at great length whether the law should differentiate between anal intercourse and other homosexual practices. Members asked themselves, for example, whether that particular practice was unnatural or more unnatural than other homosexual practices or whether that particular practice played a special part in creating prejudice against the homosexual community.
After much consideration, the committee decided on balance that there should be no differentiation and as we all know, it recommended that all homosexual practices should be decriminalised for adults conducting those practices in private.
But of course, the committee knew nothing about AIDS. Let us suppose that the members of the committee had known that it is likely that that particular practice will condemn a person to a fatally infectious disease. It seems to me plain that the committee would have decided to differentiate and, in any way it could, to discourage it.
New Clause 139 does nothing to discourage it. Indeed, by decriminalising it for 18 to 21 year-olds, it

485
removes the stigma from it and weakens the deterrent effect. In the battle against AIDS, Clause 139 is on the wrong side. That cannot be right and must be looked at. It is not good enough to make objections about privacy and enforceability. There is a range of other activities which the British public rightly treats as criminal to which the same objections can be made; namely, drug taking, homosexual practices between 16 to 18 year-olds, according to the Government, and anal intercourse with a woman. In the age of AIDS, it cannot be right to exclude anal intercourse with a man from that list.
For that reason, I believe that that clause, if it is not suitably amended, should be strongly resisted.
10.25 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Bill is immense and covers many issues which affect the everyday lives of all of us and our attitude to the deep problem of law and order in society today. There are many and varied opinions as to the causes of such behaviour, but tonight is not the time to develop the arguments. However, I believe that we have a duty to concentrate on measures to cope with the situation.
I welcome the Bill and the vast majority of its provisions. Obviously it is not possible or helpful—nor, indeed, would your Lordships wish me to—to comment on a wide range of issues at this late hour. Therefore, I shall confine myself to the one issue about which I feel most strongly. I refer to the question of what can be done about the comparatively few persistent offenders aged from 12 to 14 who bring mayhem and great trauma to their communities.
When I joined the Bench, it was the clerk who invited magistrates to join the specialist panels. I had always thought that I should like to be a member of the juvenile panel, but the clerk's request was for me to join the domestic panel. The immediate disappointment soon evaporated as I became engrossed in the new work. Indeed, I witnessed the difficulties from which so many of the children suffered—a rotten start in life. However, many families survived the trauma of family breakdown and single parents went on to bring up their children to be decent, law-abiding citizens.
At times, I have regretted not serving on the juvenile panel, but as the years have passed that has faded as I have listened, as has my noble friend Lord Kenyon, to the utter frustration of many of my colleagues. They have felt hamstrung and paralysed as their sentencing powers have been eroded and have just dwindled away. I believe that magistrates are sensible, compassionate people whose wish to serve arises from a desire to see a society where the laws of the country are respected and adhered to. Through their varied experience, I feel that they bring an understanding of the public's views on law and order. If, when they come to sentencing, they are disabled by lack of powers, then that, in my view, is unacceptable.
I believe that it is important to take into account the range of disposals of a case—beginning with a caution, followed by forms of discharge, fines, and community orders. All that happens before any form of custody is considered. For the majority of young people, those
486
penalties are adequate. It is pleasing to note that 87 per cent. of those cautioned do not again come to the attention of the police within the following two years.
I understand the principle and the importance of keeping families together so that young people can develop in the community, if necessary with the aid of probation officers and social workers. I am only too delighted when that form of treatment is successful. I admire the dedicated work carried out by the agencies. I respect their professionalism and high standards. But I was horrified when I heard that a chief probation officer had stated that if one of his officers recommended any form of custodial sentence in his report to the court, he would be subject to disciplinary procedure. I was greatly relieved when that ceased with the change in the role of the probation service.
How could magistrates have faith in a report when they knew that officers were not allowed to express their real views? I believe that that was wrong. I have seen in court distraught parents who are unable to cope with an errant child, searching for a new avenue of control. In many communities there is a minority of hard-bitten young criminals on whom existing penalties have no effect. That hard core of persistent young offenders is responsible for a large number of crimes. Indeed, we have heard this evening from my noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords about episodes where hundreds of offences have been committed by just one juvenile.
It is no good just wringing our hands and turning to policies which have failed to have any effect on such offenders. Certainly, it is no good sending them and their social workers on safaris and other holidays abroad. No wonder there was outrage when that became public knowledge. What a message to send out to Britain's youth! It is unbelievable. People have to be protected from these criminals and it is for that reason that I welcome the proposed custodial sentence—the secure training order.
I have listened to and read carefully the counter arguments: that more use should be made of existing local authority secure accommodation instead of building the new centres. I believe that there are a number of reasons why this is ill-advised. First, I think that it would be wrong to mix hardened young criminals with children who may be disturbed or may have been abused. Mixing with criminals would only add to their problems. Secondly, some social services departments have a poor record of looking after young offenders. Some local authorities have no secure accommodation. In fact there is none in my own court's area.
The proposed secure training centres will concentrate on providing a more challenging regime with a strong emphasis on training and education. The secure training order will fill a very important gap in the criminal justice system.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Can she tell me where the Bill says anything about the young people in the secure training units receiving any education?
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it has been stated by the Government that it is the intention to have developed training and education within the secure training unit.
Baroness David: My Lords, there is nothing in the Bill to say that.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it has been stated by the Government; and that is what is proposed.
Whether the sentence is the minimum of six months or up to the maximum sentence of two years, half will be spent in the centre and half under close supervision in the community. I believe that these orders will provide an intensive opportunity to change a young person's delinquent behaviour. I know that some of your Lordships will not agree with me and probably think that I am hard hearted and lacking compassion. I am certainly not a hanger and flogger and I hate the occasions when we have to deprive someone of their liberty, but sometimes that has to be done. It is because I feel so strongly that I have to say that we do not serve these young people well if we allow them to continue in their current and errant way of life. In fact, I feel that we let them down completely and probably ruin their lives.
There have been calls from the public, magistrates and the police, and I was pleased to hear a senior probation officer on radio last week supporting the proposal. The measure passed in this House and another place would give the courts greater powers. That is what people want; and I hope and trust your Lordships' House will give it support.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the hour is late and I intend to deal with only one matter. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, Clause 138 amends the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and is a catch-all clause to stop the use of foetal tissue in fertility treatment. Its intention, apparently, is to remove any possible commercial pressure on women to provide this material. I believe that many noble Lords will join me in my feelings of surprise that this clause is in a Bill dealing with criminal justice and public order. I understand that the provision was put into the Bill unnoticed, in the small hours of the morning in another place when only a handful of Members were present.
This is a complex, sensitive and emotional issue and a most inappropriate matter for a catch-all phrase in a criminal justice Bill. It is a new field of medical research and the use of eggs from foetuses for treating patients will not be possible for many years. But this research could meet the needs of many infertile couples and increase our understanding of the causes of infertility and birth defects. It also has implications for the studies of new avenues for treating many diseases from heart disease to diabetes. Therefore your Lordships will realise that there are important scientific, moral, legal and ethical aspects regarding the use of foetal tissue.
It is because of the complicated and sensitive nature of this matter that the Government quite rightly set up the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Sir Colin Campbell. Represented on the authority are
488
technical and scientific interests, religious interests and moral and ethical interests thus enabling the authority to look carefully at every aspect of embryology research. Meanwhile there are stringent laws and regulations governing abortion and research which stop any trade in foetal tissue and at the same time the authority is responsible for licensing and inspecting fertility clinics and research centres.
The authority is the first of its kind in the world and its views and decisions are widely respected both here and overseas. The authority published its public consultation document in January this year and the consultation period is due to end in mid-July. It has had open meetings with doctors, scientists and people interested in the ethical aspects of embryology and is currently considering nearly 10,000 responses that it has received. The approval by your Lordships of Clause 138 will by-pass all this consultation and will be an affront to those people who have made considered responses. It will bring the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority into contempt and I think it will undermine its work. Britain is currently at the forefront in this new research and an affront to the authority will probably send some of our leading scientists overseas.
I therefore suggest that Clause 138 be removed from the Bill and the matter be left to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and its current consultation process. It was set up by the Government specifically to deal with this matter; it is well equipped to do so. Let it do its job.
10.36 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, fear of crime is one of the most prevalent anxieties of our society today. That fear is not without cause, given the range of criminal activities from burglaries to car theft and more violent crimes. I therefore welcome the bulk of the measures in this Bill designed to address more effectively the scourge of widespread crime.
I have always had a particular concern about the impact that the media—especially television and videos —can have on children in encouraging them to imitate violence or participate in early criminal activity. I therefore give a particular welcome to the proposals in Part VII of the Bill on obscenity, pornography and videos, and look forward to seeing the promised government amendments on videos which may be harmful to children. I am delighted that the Home Office has responded to the proper public concern on this issue.
I feel, however, that the other place was out of touch both with public feeling and moral concern when it voted to include Clause 139 in the Bill, lowering from 21 to 18 the age at which homosexual acts are lawful. I believe this is a backward step in the protection of young people and this, of course, includes handicapped young people, just as Part VII of the Bill is a forward step. I give notice that I would support any amendment to the Bill which re-establishes 21 as the so-called homosexual age of consent.
There is one other matter which puzzles me. I myself am not a lawyer and I have no legal expertise whatsoever, but it seems to me as a complete amateur that Clauses 30 and 31 remove a vital principle of law

489
in that the alleged victim or accomplice could make an accusation with no corroborating evidence and have an innocent man convicted. I may have got it wrong because I am not a legal expert at all, but I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, when he winds up, to correct me if I have read the clause wrong. If I have misled the House in any way I must apologise, but I felt I should be failing in my duty if I did not tell the House about what looks to me, frankly, to be an error.
I found myself this evening agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey in his opening address. Perhaps I may say to the House that this does not happen very often. He said that he felt that the causes of the high rate of crime in this country should be analysed. I wholeheartedly support that proposal. I ask the noble and learned Lord, when he winds up, to tell us whether the causes of the very high crime rate in this country have been analysed; and if so, what conclusion the Government have come to. If it has not been analysed, perhaps I may mention one very small charity, called Schools Outreach, which does tremendous work in this regard. It puts highly trained workers into schools at the request of the headmaster. The worker gets alongside the troublesome people in the school. Results have been extremely promising. The truancy situation has improved enormously. One can say with complete confidence that our prisons are less full today than they would be if Schools Outreach did not exist. I ask the Government to investigate Schools Outreach and see whether they share my assessment of this charity. If they do, I suggest that they give it some support. In my judgment it does tremendously good work.
I believe that the people of this country are sick and tired of hearing that the criminal has got off lightly and the victim has suffered greatly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, who said that we must have deterrents which effectively deter. This Bill goes a long way, though not so far as I would like, to meeting that criticism.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for telling us, in a balanced and authoritative speech, that out of 1,000 deaths from AIDS that occurred in the UK in the year ending 31st December 1993, over 70 per cent. occurred among homosexual men. Noble Lords will of course judge for themselves, but it seems to me that that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that there is a strong link between AIDS and homosexual men. It may be that noble Lords feel that Members in another place did not show the wisdom which we normally expect from them when they voted to lower the so-called age of homosexual consent.
Finally, with the few reservations that I have mentioned, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, nobody can be in any doubt that one of the matters that is of greatest concern to many people in Britain today is the increasing lawlessness in our society. More than that, there is a widespread feeling that the mechanisms which all
490
civilised societies have to deal with such problems, of which Britain has long prided itself on having one of the best, are not working as they should.
Whatever the causes of the increased lawlessness—and those causes are clearly not unique to Britain—it is to the apparent inability of the forces of law and order, the police and the courts, to contain them that we have turned our attention today.
The criminal justice system will always be one of fine balance, as my noble friend said when he so eloquently opened this debate. But it cannot be a coincidence that the increased liberalisation of that system that has taken place during most of my lifetime has been matched almost step for step by the breakdown of law and order. Although some noble Lords will have, and indeed have already expressed, concern at some aspects of the Bi11 that is before us today, and have criticised the Government for introducing them, it is against a background of enormous public disquiet that the Government have brought this legislation forward. Your Lordships will rightly earn the anger of the British people if anything that we do during the passage of this Bill prevents the Government from giving to our police and courts the ammunition that they need to fire in the fight against crime.
We are all too aware that those who commit crime: currently do so in the knowledge that the chances of their being caught are slim; that even if they are caught. the scales of justice are weighted heavily in favour of their escaping conviction; and that in the unlikely event that they are convicted the sentence that is handed out to them will be meagre enough and may even then bear little relation to the time that they will serve.
The lawyers among your Lordships are naturally concerned about any measure that might prejudice the rights of defendants, which rights are a cherished part of our legal system. But it is important to be objective in assessing whether those same rights are being abused to the detriment of the law-abiding majority. While lawyers may feel that their special knowledge gives them an edge over the rest of us in making that assessment, they should remember that, because they preside over that same system as is so manifestly failing us all, their conclusion may not always be as objective as it might otherwise be.
The rise in crime has predominantly been an urban problem. But although, like all your Lordships, I am worried about all areas of crime, it is with the crime that spills over into our countryside that I shall concern myself tonight. Within the Bill before us there are two new provisions to deal with the disruption of country sports. There has been much confusing propaganda put about by animal rights groups. It is therefore important that noble Lords should be quite clear about that area of the Bill.
For many years there has been a genuine objection by a very small minority in our community to sports which involve the taking of animal, bird and fish life. Although I and many others who both deeply understand and love that part of our rural sporting tradition think that that objection is misguided, nevertheless we respect that view and those who hold it.

491
But in recent years, reasoned debate and peaceful protest have given way to abuse, intimidation and violence on a scale not seen before in the British countryside. Men and women of all ages, as well as children, have routinely been subjected to a stream of abuse and threats. Increasing numbers have been physically attacked and injured. Over the past few years, large groups, on occasion numbering hundreds of people, sometimes clad in paramilitary uniforms, wearing balaclavas to hide their identities and carrying an assortment of weapons, have arrived in the countryside, usually from towns and cities, intent on violence and disorder. Within the past three years such attacks have spread to shooting parties and fishing. Last year the activities of those people was a major contributory factor in the debacle of the Grand National, resulting, apart from anything else, in huge financial loss.
There must be no misunderstanding about the severity of the problem. We are not talking about a few yobbos; we are talking about large gangs which are well organised and well funded. The same faces as have been photographed attacking hunts were seen in Trafalgar Square during the poll tax riots and in the East End of London at the forefront of last year's race riots. Animal rights violence is where the Far Left of British politics meets the Hard Right. Two young men have already died from that violence. Property and vehicles have been destroyed. If any noble Lords should mistakenly believe that animal rights has anything to do with animal welfare, perhaps I may remind them that one of those people was recently convicted of beating a foxhound to death with a hammer.
The Government's decision to legislate on this subject has not been taken lightly or easily. Those of us who are involved in all sorts of country sports have worked closely with the police to seek a solution. Up to now the police believed that they had the necessary powers to deal with those problems. But the problems have now escalated to the extent where the Association of Chief Police Officers has reluctantly concluded that the existing law does not have the provisions within it required to deal with that level of disorder.
The provisions in Clauses 63 and 64 of the Bill create two new offences. Clause 63 creates the substantive offence of aggravated trespass. It will be an offence for a trespasser to do something which is intended to disrupt a lawful activity or to intimidate somebody else into ceasing a lawful activity. In Clause 64 the police will be given a new power to direct trespassers to leave private land if they believe that those trespassers will seek to disrupt or prevent a lawful activity on that land.
The measures do not apply only to country sports. They apply to the disruption of any lawful activity. As such, they are aimed not solely, as has been implied, at hunt saboteurs, but at anyone who attempts to disrupt any lawful activity, which may include angling, racing or even football. Peaceful protest will not be outlawed. Indeed, peaceful protesters may continue to protest as their action would lack the intention to disrupt. Disruption must be intentional. Because accidental
492
disruption following a trespass will not be an offence, climbers and ramblers need have no fear that they will be inadvertently caught.
The new offences are not a verdict on country sports; nor should they be seen as such. But noble Lords who may have been encouraged to vote against them should be quite clear what is at stake. At present, groups who do not agree with other people's pastimes have chosen to step outside the law and use violence as a method of getting their way. If Parliament were to sanction that behaviour, then we might as well all pack up and go home, for that is the route to anarchy.
Over 5 million people participate in country sports, and many millions follow horse racing. Those people have patiently put up with this violence for too long, trusting to the police for their protection. The police have now sought further powers and the Government have responded. The Government will earn the gratitude of all country people for that response, while those who oppose these measures will find that their opposition will not easily be forgotten.
What has happened in the countryside is merely a microcosm of what has happened throughout the whole country. Although your Lordships will want to look carefully at the details of the Bill as it progresses through its stages in your Lordships' House, and may have understandable concerns that the measures proposed maintain the correct balance, it is as well to remember that the British people are heartily sick of the current levels of crime and will not look kindly on those who seek to dilute the Government's commendable resolve.
I am pleased this evening to be able to add my support to the Bill and can confirm the gratitude of many thousands of ordinary people in the countryside that the Government have had the courage to take the necessary steps to redress the balance of our criminal justice system in favour of the victims of crime.
10.51 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, at this time of night I should like to make some brief comments on the single Clause 138, which relates to the subject of embryos. Perhaps I may say that I am extremely sorry that my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton is not able to be here this evening to give us his valuable knowledge on this subject and, indeed, on other matters in the Bill.
Much of what I wanted to say was ably and comprehensively said three speeches ago by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. As has been said, the clause was not in the Bill as first published. It was put in as a new clause by a Conservative Back-Bencher in the final stages of the Bill in another place, after midnight and with no vote. This is a prime case for this Chamber to closely examine the implications of the clause in Committee.
I wish to say about this clause in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said some hours ago about the Bill; namely, that we should be able to deal with it in a non-party spirit. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, it is unfortunate that we shall be debating embryos in the context of the criminal justice Bill. The haste of the introduction of the clause is

493
inexplicable for two reasons. First, it is generally agreed that any practical use of the procedure being outlawed by the Bill is at least 10 years away; secondly, the clause significantly pre-ernpts the massive consultation exercise currently being undertaken by the HFEA—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—exactly covering the issues before us.
As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, I understand that the HFEA sent out 20,000 copies of a public consultation document entitled Donated Ovarian Tissue in Embryo Research & Assisted Conception. Replies and comments from nearly 10,000 respondents were received and the deadline was extended until July. The HFEA is an extremely responsible body and explicitly encouraged genuine public debate on this extremely difficult subject.
I know that outside the House many medical representative bodies have already expressed their concerns about this clause; and in this House I know that Members of all parties have indicated that they hope that some way may be found constructively to amend the clause, and that includes distinguished medical and scientific Members on the Cross-Benches.
Finally, given the origin and circumstances of the clause, I hope that the Government will be prepared to encourage all your Lordships genuinely to listen to the arguments advanced at the next stages of the Bill.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Byron: My Lords, I have a sneaking suspicion that your Lordships will not wish to hear, at this time of night, a further treatise on the right to silence; indeed, your Lordships may well feel that rather than embark upon that, I should exercise the right to silence myself and sit down immediately. I have therefore torn up what I intended to say on the right to silence, and say only this. I hope that when the matter goes into Committee the Government will consider the safeguards proposed by the Bar Council, albeit that the Bar Council regards hem as very much a fall-back position. I believe that those safeguards would substantially improve the Bill and reassure people who, like myself, have considerable reservations about the problems of the right to silence or, one might say, the obligation to talk having to be exercised at a stage prior to formal interview.
Neither of the two matters to which I should like to refer is at present contained on the face of the Bill. In saying that, I should not wish it to be thought that I am generally hostile to the Bill. In particular, in regard to Part I, despite criticisms which have been levied against it, I cannot see how any responsible government could have failed to bring in some such measure to deal with persistent young offenders, even though the cost seems very high.
The first matter on which I should like to touch relates to the recent amendments to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. On 2nd March I sat in your Lordships' House listening to a debate on an Unstarred Question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Although it was late in the evening there was a long list of distinguished speakers, and looking down the list I tried to spot who, other than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, answering for the
494
Government, might have something to say in support of the proposals. In the event, not a single speaker, lawyer or non-lawyer, for the Government, the Opposition or the Cross Benches had anything to say in favour of the proposals.
In that debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—I hope he will not object to my quoting him tonight—said that the changes were a cost cutting exercise and that the Government were guilty of hypocrisy in suggesting otherwise. He said that the scheme was grossly unfair in that those who suffer the most serious injuries and the more substantial losses will receive only a fraction of the compensation which is now provided. He also said that the Government's proposal was an abuse of power in that provisions were contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to put the scheme on a statutory footing and those provisions have never been brought into effect.
I would not wish to say anything about the constitutional position or the legality of those measures. But sitting through that debate it struck me that the arguments against the so-called tariff system were so overwhelming that it was inconceivable that the Government would not think again. Alas, unless there has been some recent development of which I am unaware, the new tariff scheme is now in operation, albeit that there will be a challenge to it in the courts, which is a highly undesirable state of affairs. I also recently learnt that the Northern Ireland scheme is a statutory scheme and presumably is still in effect, although, no doubt, there may be some amendment to it. On that point, I am not entirely clear.
The reason the issue is germane to the present Bill is that the Government said in a White Paper that the provisions of the 1988 Act would be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity presented itself. Such an opportunity has indeed presented itself in the shape of the present Bill, but for some reason the Government have not seen fit to include in it measures repealing Sections 108 to 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
I would have a great deal of sympathy for the Government if they said that the present scheme had become too expensive and needed to be looked at again. Governments must always be concerned with keeping expenditure under control; and this Government have a very good record in that respect. My answer, however, would have been that it is the policy of this Government, and, I believe, the party which I support, to look after the victims of crime.
Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who opened the debate for the Government, said in his peroration that it was to protect the innocent from the activities of criminals that this measure was particularly directed. I suggest that compensating the victims of crime, in the way they have been compensated for the past 30 years was also an important consideration. Therefore, I invite the Government to take the opportunity to bring forward an amendment to repeal the relevant sections of the 1988 Act and to allow this matter to receive the due consideration of Parliament.
There is one other matter I would like to raise very briefly at this stage. It concerns the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In that year Parliament decided to

495
retain the criminal remedies in proceedings by persons aggrieved by statutory nuisances, with fines and compensation being payable. In another place an amendment was moved to improve the effectiveness of Section 82. That section is an effective remedy and usually much quicker than civil proceedings in county courts under other legislation. For some it is the only remedy and legal aid is not available for such proceedings.
I understand that meetings are taking place between the Law Society and officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment. I understand that there are no policy objections to the proposed amendments but that some changes are required to the drafting proposed in another place. I therefore hope very much that the Government will be able to bring forward an amendment in due time to be considered in this Bill.
There is a great deal which is good in the Bill, but we should remember that its Short Title is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. It was once said by Martin Luther King (although I do not believe that he was the first person to say it) about his supporters rather than his opponents, that they loved order more than justice. I hope that when we come to consider this matter in Committee we shall be very careful that we do not let this Bill err too far towards order and away from justice.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, having the honour to be the last of 41 speakers before the winding-up speeches, I shall attempt to be among the briefest. To this end, and at this hour of the night, I trust that my general welcome and support for the Bill's aims can be taken as read.
I have two interests to declare and to represent. The first is as a middle-aged businessman who has the temerity to drive a BMW motor car in central London. The second is as the owner of a Highland deer forest. In the first capacity I fear that Clause 55(5) of the Bill may make my life, and that of others like me, even more difficult than it has recently become by allowing the police to carry out more random breath tests than they do already.
I am aware that random breath tests are not supposed to be permitted under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but they are in effect being administered ever more frequently. The two most favoured covers for this particular activity appear to be the ostensible security check and the purported traffic offence. Of these, the latter is of course more difficult to criticise, but road blocks which single out rather smart BMWs and other similar cars for inspection, while letting dilapidated old vans continue unexamined, seem to me to cast doubt on the object of the exercise.
But be all that as it may, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that Clause 55(5), which I understand was inserted in another place, will not be used by the police to force the breathalyser on some wretched driver, be it of a BMW or anything else, just because he happens to be driving in an area covered by the proposed clause?
496
As to the second capacity in which I speak tonight (that of an owner and indeed occupier of land in the Scottish Highlands) I feel sure that my noble friend is aware of the disquiet which the new offence of aggravated trespass in Clause 63 of the Bill is causing to many who walk and climb the hills. In brief, they fear that owners and occupiers of land will be able to curtail their enjoyment of the hills by claiming that they are wilfully disrupting a lawful activity such as stalking; indeed, perhaps particularly stalking.
My reading of the Bill suggests that this fear may be misplaced, because the owner or occupier would appear to have to show, presumably to the satisfaction of the local police and the procurator fiscal, that the disruption or obstruction was intentional before a prosecution could be launched. But I would be very grateful if my noble friend could confirm this understanding for the record, if it is indeed correct, and thus generally set at rest the minds of all those who enjoy our magnificent Highland heritage and who share it responsibly with those who make their living on the land in question.
I trust your Lordships will not think these two requests for clarification too esoteric at this time of night. At least I trust you will agree that they have been briefly put.
11.6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, at this time of night—I echo the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for once—you will not want a long wind-up speech from these Benches, and I do not intend to make such a speech. It is quite clear from the debate we have had this afternoon that this Bill is the kind of Bill which will show the House of Lords at its best and its most useful. From all sides of the House there has come support for some aspects and criticism for other aspects of the Bill. It is when this arises that the various elements in the House and its specialised knowledge can be brought to bear greatly to improve legislation.
The debate this evening has ranged in the main around two major issues. Others have of course been raised which are of particular importance to particular groups. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Avebury—the father of gypsy legislation in another place—still protecting the gypsy case. Certainly it is going to need protection. That is something which has had some support from various Members on other Benches, although others may find reasons to criticise it. There has also been the question of trespass, which has been raised by some Members but which again will call for debates from many other Members, and not exclusively from any one Bench.
However, the two issues which have certainly dominated the debate tonight have been the issue of the right to silence and the issue of the imprisonment of young offenders. On the question of the right to silence, there seemed to be three views: there are those who consider that the right to silence should remain exactly as it is and not be interfered with at any stage of the process; those who consider that it is entirely right to abandon the right to silence entirely; and those who have taken the line that the right to silence must certainly be maintained until the case has been fully

497
discussed in the courts but that, when it is in the court, with all the safeguards that the court can provide, then changes can legitimately be made that cannot be made at the earlier stage when the police have just arrested an individual and are carrying him to the police station or are questioning him in the police station.
I do not know at the end of the day which of those three views is likely to be reflected in the legislation, but I am quite certain there will be amendments along those lines and that discussion will rage very strongly on this particular issue. I view with very considerable suspicion any attempt to tamper with the right to silence, though I have been most interested in what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, whose experience in this area is unquestionably very great, and also of course by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, who drew attention to the evidence in his most distinguished Royal Commission report.
The other point which has caused a great deal of interest and controversy this evening has been the issue of how to deal with the serious young offender of the age of 12 to 16 and the suggestion in the Bill that secure accommodation—imprisonment it is in reality, whatever words are used—should be provided for these youngsters. There have been those from all around the House who have supported it and those—I am one of them—who have been extremely critical of that proposal.
As many speakers have pointed out, the number of offences committed by juveniles has gone down, not up, and there is good research to show that the number of hard core offenders of that age is very small indeed. It is also evident from research that a great many of those who do offend at a very young age are greatly influenced by social conditions. I know that in some quarters of your Lordships' House it is the fashion now to sneer at references to adverse social and personal conditions which may contribute to offending. None the less, it remains a fact that a great many of those youngsters—there is good research to support this—have no proper home base.
There are those who say that if such youngsters are taken away from home they should be kept near their families. Yes, indeed, if they have a family to be kept near, but many of them have no families, and in some cases when they have families it is undoubtedly the so-called family which has precipitated the circumstances in which the youngsters find themselves as offenders.
I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that locking them up in groups of 40 will lead to any kind of reform of such youngsters. Surely we all know that what has an effect on young offenders—I suspect, offenders of any age—is the development of a close personal relationship with someone who can detect some sign of growth and development, some hope for the youngster if properly developed. That depends very much on good personal relationships with the person who can guide and help him or her. The kind of supervision that can provide that help for small numbers of offenders is much more likely to be effective than putting 40 offenders of different ages all together in conditions in
498
which many of those who have been the least serious offenders are likely to be bullied and influenced by the toughest and most dangerous.
I should have thought that that was an extremely dangerous and unnecessarily expensive way of dealing with what is a real problem. That is not the way to deal with it. There are already organisations throughout the country which can provide help. For example, SOVA, of which I have the honour to be president provides help on an individual volunteer basis to families in which people are in trouble with the police. It is that kind of personal contact, not locking up people, which is likely in the end to have the greatest effect. There is criticism of the proposal from all around the House. I support strongly the view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who said that, in so far as it is necessary to lock up people, there is local authority accommodation ready and available. Why on earth spend £30 million? The Government are always talking about value for money, and spending money in the way that will achieve the best results. There can be no Member of your Lordships' House who cannot think of better ways of spending that £30 million to cut back crime than building unnecessary and extremely expensive institutions whose success is likely to be—on the prediction of all those people who know about this matter—slight, even if their effect is not negative.
Having looked at some of the major issues that have been raised in the debate, I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who raised this point in a speech which seems a long time ago—it is not quite yesterday, but it jolly nearly is—when he said that this is not the Bill that we should be discussing. We cannot have mammoth criminal justice Bills year after year—and this is a mammoth Bill. It weighs no less than 444 grammes—your Lordships will see how up-to-date I am. We do not need this Bill, which deals with certain problems in a piecemeal way. We need a criminal justice Bill which will deal with the basic causes of crime and the way to cope with the crime that arises from those causes—something which this Bill does not deal with.
I cannot understand why, when the Government have a good idea—and from time to time they do—they are so frightened at the sight of it that they run away. Only two years ago we were informed by the Government, and in White Papers, that they were in favour of having, fewer people sent to prison. That was a very bright idea. It was fairly obvious to many of us and we were extremely pleased that it had at last penetrated the mind of the Government, who are responsible for these things. We all cheered and were delighted when the numbers of people going into custody fell.
At last the Government did the right thing by setting up a Royal Commission. For a long time some of us had been saying that we would like to see the return of a. Royal Commission instead of the Green Papers of anonymous authorship based on unidentifiable research with which we have been pestered during the past 10 years. We were delighted that there was to be a Royal Commission and that people who knew about the subject would take evidence from other people who knew something about it and would produce a

499
considered report. We cheered when the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, was asked to chair it and we cheered more loudly when his report was published. Of course we thought that the Government would be influenced by it. But they have an entrenched dislike of anyone who knows anything about a subject. They have a marked preference for listening to the people who do not claim to be expert rather than to those who have taken trouble to become expert and have expressed their views in the form of a Royal Commission.
We were deeply disappointed because we thought that the Government had been converted and influenced by publications such as the Woolf Report, by a great deal of propaganda and by some of their own research from, of all places, the Home Office. We thought that they had changed but what do we find? They have been frightened by their own avant-garde approach which they adopted a couple of years ago, and they have gone into reverse with this Bill.
We need a criminal justice Bill which goes to the heart of the trouble; the reasons why people turn to crime. We know what some of those reasons are and no more research is necessary. We know that it will take a long time to get some of it right but the problem is to be found in the levels of unemployment and in the fact that many 16 to 18 year-olds have no money and nothing to do with their time. The problem relates in particular to young men—this is not a sexist remark—who have no money and little to do. They are almost certain to get in to trouble of some kind or another. We know that it has to do with the inadequacies of the education system and that it can be helped by providing better education at an earlier age. We know that it can be helped by providing better housing. Most of us have never had to live in overcrowded conditions. Families are fine things in theory but I am never surprised to learn that when members cross each other some of the worst crimes are committed inside families. Crowded housing conditions are likely to cause the kind of trouble that we are encountering.
So we could pull together the knowledge that we already have in respect of why there is so much crime. We could have a Bill which would deal with the roots of the problem and not the symptoms, which is all that this Bill does.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, at this hour, I shall not attempt to sum up on every issue. I leave that task to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, whose isolation in our recent debate on criminal injuries compensation has just been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Byron.
I shall focus on some key issues. First, we on these Benches pledge to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, our support against the establishment of child gaols, called secure training centres. In most of Europe children under the age of 14 are below the age of criminal responsibility. There it is the care system and not the criminal justice system which deals with very young offenders. The concept of imprisoning children aged 12 to 14 in child gaols, remote from family and
500
community, is so retrograde that the conscience and wisdom of this House, after full discussion in Committee, will surely say no.
I have three specific questions which I invite the noble and learned Lord to answer in his reply. Under Clause 1(5) (b) a court is not to make a secure training order unless it is satisfied that the offender has been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences. The noble Lord, Lord Acton, drew attention to that provision. Does that mean three offences each committed on a separate occasion or is it intended that if three distinct imprisonable offences are committed on the same occasion, the 12 year-old is eligible for a secure training order? That is a simple question. Presumably the Government know what they intend in bringing forward this provision. If the answer is yes, do three imprisonable offences on a single occasion really qualify as persistent juvenile offending of which the former Home Secretary spoke when heralding the provision and of which the noble Earl spoke in opening the debate?
My second question is whether the five proposed secure training centres are likely to be sited within existing prisons.
Thirdly, if a place in a secure training centre is not available a court may, under Clause 2(2) (a), commit the offender to such place as the Secretary of State may direct. Without any court intervention whatever, the Secretary of State may transfer the child from a secure training centre to such a place. Therefore, my third question is as to what kind of place that may be. Will it be an adult penal establishment or even a police cell?
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lady David, most notably, have listed the objections to those child gaols. Cumulatively, they are compelling. They will remove children far from family and community, heightening their sense of isolation and rejection. They will be branded criminals and the regime will be essentially punitive.
The right place for such children is as close as possible to their homes and communities in local authority secure units staffed by workers trained to deal with very difficult young people. We regard that proposal not as a return to Victorian values, but as a return to pre-Victorian values when commercial companies ran child gaols for profit.
Many of your Lordships concentrated on the right to silence. Before I turn to that, perhaps I may make this short point. The Runciman commission was set up because of a long line of miscarriages of justice which have brought our criminal justice system into public disrepute. The commission recommended that the Home Secretary's power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal should be removed and a new independent authority should be set up.
The Home Office's discussion paper says that it accepts the Royal Commission's recommendation but there is nothing in this Bill, which enjoys its own very substantial place in this legislative programme. I regret to say that I am not as sanguine as the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. There is no guarantee that space will be found in the next or any future legislative programme for the implementation of that recommendation unless

501
we hear it from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, this evening, which I hope we may. For the present, we are minded to table an amendment to provide for the establishment of such an authority here and now.
The supreme irony for the present is that the commission's advice that an independent authority to deal with miscarriages of justice be set up is not being implemented, whereas its recommendation that the right to silence be preserved is rejected, with the risks that that involves of increasing miscarriages of justice; indeed, all the risks to which my noble friend Lady Mallalieu referred and which the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, trenchantly expressed.
Perhaps I may start with the basic point about the abolition of the right to silence. It is argued that the changes in the Bill do not abolish the right to silence but merely introduce the right to comment adversely on its exercise. I find that a rather and proposition. At present in the generality of cases there is a right to silence which is absolute. However, the right to silence is no longer absolute but it is eroded if prejudice can result from its exercise. It is too obvious that a real risk of adverse comment imposes a pressure to speak. The Bill obviously erodes the right to silence. The removal of the inability of anyone to comment adversely on silence changes the character of the right: in place of a risk-free right to silence will be pressure to yield to questioning. I would also add that the burden of proof of guilt will not remain as it was before because when the accused opts for silence there will then in practice be a burden on him to give reasons for his silence.
Next, the Government are rejecting the considered judgment of two Royal Commissions. They are claiming support from the minority on the Runciman Commission. But that minority provided no support for the abolition of a citizen's right to silence at every stage of the criminal process, nor for any abolition without additional safeguards being in place.
The Bill provides that the right to silence is lost at any time before the suspect is charged—say, when there is questioning by a constable in the street or by a store detective in a supermarket. Therefore, it is simply wrong to suggest that PACE will regulate every circumstance where the right to silence is lost. Nor are any additional safeguards to be provided at the police station. It is not even provided that suspects should be told broadly what is the potential charge against them, or that they should have access to proper legal advice, or that compliance with PACE should be a pre-condition of admissibility.
Further, what is the case for making those fundamental changes in the first place? The only justification can be that a greater prospect of convicting the guilty outweighs a greater risk of convicting the innocent. Let us take the facts. The research figures of those who exercise the right of silence are not constant, but 10 per cent. would be at the higher end. Research for the 1993 Crown Court Study showed that 50 per cent. of all who did not speak in the police station were convicted. That is very close to the Crown Court conviction rate of 43 per cent. for all defendants. That suggests that silence gives no significant advantage if a jury hears convincing evidence. The same research
502
showed that in about 5 per cent. of cases there were ambush defences which in the study undertaken always failed.
If the question is why should not someone caught in suspicious circumstances have to explain himself, I suggest that the answer is fourfold: they usually do, in about 90 per cent. of cases; if they do not, they have a 50–50 chance of conviction - much the same as anyone else; and if an ambush defence is run it almost always fails. However, the really important point, and the other side of the equation, is fairness to the suspect.
The risk of conviction of the innocent will increase with those changes because of pressure to submit to police questioning. Notorious miscarriages of justice have resulted from alleged admissions which subsequently proved to be untrue. The confused, the inarticulate, the weak and the inadequate are prone to suggestion and bullying; and they need the right to silence.
We say that the right to silence should be left unchanged. But as an alternative we shall put down a range of amendments to build safeguards into the proposed system. Examples are that the right to silence should continue completely unchanged outside the police station; and if it is to cease in the police station that should be only if the PACE safeguards apply. Questioning should take place only when the accused i s protected by a tape recording of questions and hi s answers to them; and only when he has had the opportunity of legal advice.
I should add that we see considerable merit in the Royal Commission's recommendation 83 to which the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman referred. These Benches would be disposed to support an amendment implementing that recommendation.
Next I come to the rising tide of racism in this country and the opportunity that the Bill gives to combat it. There are three ways. The first is by legislating against racially motivated violence and harassment. We welcome the intimation from the noble Earl that amendments are to be brought forward to provide tougher penalties for persistent racial harassment. But we believe that the time is ripe to legislate against racial violence and harassment and we shall be tabling a suitable amendment. Secondly, the dissemination of racist and perhaps in particular anti-semitic hate literature is growing, and we shall be tabling amendments to strengthen the law in that regard. Finally, we think the time has come to create a new offence of group vilification. We shall be tabling an amendment in that regard but I leave any detailed explanation to the Committee stage.
I move from the Government's unwillingness to provide special protection for minorities who require it to their willingness to persecute—and I use that word advisedly—an even more vulnerable minority. I refer to Clauses 72 to 75 of the Bill which deal with gypsies and New Age travellers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield had compassionate and realistic observations to make on that subject. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that everyone was astounded when the Government's proposals were announced. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon—with

503
the greater part of whose speech I am sure he will forgive me if I say I did not agree—express his grave doubts, based on his knowledge of the problem about the road down which the Government propose to go.
The provisions deal with gypsies and New Age travellers. The clauses represent a high watermark of repressiveness without any countervailing social policy and give the lie, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury said, to the Government's claim to be the party of family unity. At one stroke the provisions destroy the tradition that non-conforming minorities are not to be persecuted. The duty of local authorities under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide sites for caravans is to be repealed. At the same time removal from unauthorised sites is to be criminalised and exchequer grant for site construction is to be withdrawn totally. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will well remember, the 1968 Act was passed with all-party support when tolerance and minimum common values still prevailed. Now we are set for a return to the days when many of those people could act lawfully only when they kept on the move. The Government's proposition that gypsies should apply for planning permission for sites that they should buy is nothing other than a sick joke. A large part of this ethnic group will be harried from pillar to post with nowhere to stay and no lawful option other than to remain on the move.
Instead of fashioning a civilised balance between the way of life of gypsies and their families on the one hand, and the proper interests and concerns of communities whom they affect on the other, the Government have elected for the easy route of repression of a minority with no political clout. We will expose those provisions for what they are and in great detail in Committee.
The Government have succeeded in losing even law and order as a stick for beating the Opposition. That is the sea change for which this Home Secretary's stewardship will be remembered. The country has seen through the party that calls itself the party of law and order. That is why Tony Blair's,
"tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime",
has struck a winning chord in the country—a country which craves even-handedness and balance, in place of dogma.
The Bill is the work of one man, a Home Secretary on the run; a Home Secretary who, according to this morning's Independent, is running so hard that he has been driven to send a tough warning to this House not to tamper with any of the main planks of his Bill—a warning which we shall not heed.
This Bill has been called by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, a "hotch-potch" and by my noble friend Lord McIntosh a "ragbag". Both do it an injustice; the Bill has a unifying theme, it incorporates every unbalanced measure that will as much guarantee ecstasy at the Tory Party conference as rejection by the responsible. If the competition is in excess, the party opposite will, of course, win. The competition that we propose to win is in opposing many parts of this Bill on their merits and in the interests of the country.
11.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak before midnight at the end of what has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Once again, the special strengths of the House have been demonstrated in a debate distinguished by contributions from eminent speakers showing a wide range of experience and expertise. It started with broad moral themes and dealt in some circumstances with great knowledge of particular problems that the Bill seeks to address.
There have been more than 40 speakers and I hope that I will be forgiven if I fail to respond to every point raised or mention every contribution, even of those who have had the courtesy and opportunity to stay here until this time. However, I must first join in the general compliments that have been paid to the two maiden speakers in the course of the debate. Rightly, the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, to the law has been highlighted. As a Scot perhaps I may say that, in the jurisdiction from which I come, that high regard for him is equally shared, coupled with the highest respect for his personal integrity and his courage.
Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who similarly made his maiden speech. He spoke with a real background understanding of the problems of what goes on in prisons. I am grateful to him for the stress that he laid on the importance of encouraging young offenders and prisoners to address offending behaviour as a matter of fundamental importance. As Minister with responsibility for prisons in Scotland, I am grateful for the encouragement that he gave that attitudes which were once in place when he first joined the prison service have now passed.
There are 152 clauses in the Bill. By my calculation, having been here for most of the debate, the attention has focused principally on about 30 of those clauses. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, described it as a Bill which would do irreparable damage to the criminal law of this country. That contains within it a grain of exaggeration. There are clearly large numbers of clauses which were not referred to at all on which there is widespread support, not only in this House and another place, but in the country. I think that that might have been recognised. It would be unfortunate if it was thought that this House rejected in its entirety all that is contained within the Bill. There are a number of very desirable and important changes. There is one that has not been mentioned at all. I am bound to say that I am surprised that we have got to 1994, after nearly 300 years of union between Scotland and England, and have not managed until this Bill to put in place proper arrangements for cross-Border policing.
Perhaps I may deal with the major themes that have emerged from the contributions during the course of the debate. The first one—at the beginning of Part I—relates to secure training orders. The initiative that we have taken has been caricatured in a number of speeches as a reversion to policies that return to the failed "lock 'em up" approaches of the 1970s and 1980s.

505
I stress that there are three senses in which the STO attempts to build on what has been learnt from the past. First, there is a recognition of the need to target carefully those youngsters for whom detention is really necessary. Approved schools and even detention centres prior to 1982 admitted a wide range of youngsters many of whom could no doubt have been equally well, if not better, dealt with within the community. The secure training order will only be available if the strict statutory criteria are met. There must have been at least three convictions for imprisonable offences. The juvenile must already have been subject to a supervision order, and have either committed an offence while subject to it or be in breach of it. The offence must also be sufficiently serious that it meets the basic criteria of custodial sentences set out in the 1991 Act as amended. We take the view that the filtering process that is provided by these criteria provides an important distinction from what has gone before and should serve to limit the pool of candidates to those who really need this type of intervention.
Secondly, the small size of the STCs—that is, restricted to only 40 places—will enable them to provide (I was asked this specifically) high standards of care, education and training, and the basis that is set out in the agency specification will be underpinned by minimum standards which will be set out in the rules. Each trainee going into the course will be assessed on arrival at the centre, which will result in an individualised training plan lasting for the duration of the order and focusing on education and on tackling offending behaviour.
Thirdly, some stress has been put on the fact that there will be a restricted number of centres, and that they may be some distance from where the youngster comes. The important feature of our arrangement is the provision of intensive supervision after release. That is a crucial part of the STOs, which will be linked to through care and ensure that individualised training plans continue for the duration of the order to enable the successful rehabilitation of the offender after his or her return to the community. One proposal has been that instead of establishing these, local authority secure accommodation should be used. Such accommodation already serves a variety of purposes in dealing with difficult and disturbed children between the ages of 10 and 18. While some of those are offenders, many are not. The Government believe that the new secure training centres, dedicated to dealing with persistent offenders within a relatively small age range, will be able to provide a much more focused regime in which terms of education and programmes to tackle offending behaviour can be developed.
Notwithstanding the establishment of the centres, it is clear that local authority secure accommodation will have to be expanded by some 170 places to cater for juveniles remanded to local authority accommodation with a security requirement, or detained under the extended scope of Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. The locations of the centres have now been made public and they will, I wish to confirm, operate as self-contained and fully autonomous units within their own right.
506
The second major theme developed during the course of the debate was one that came together under the shorthand of the abolition of the right of silence. That may be a convenient shorthand term, but it significantly distorts what is indeed encompassed within our debate. Those clauses that are within the Bill attempt to deal with those circumstances in which inferences might be drawn from what I would suggest are clearly and narrowly defined circumstances in which an accused person does not say anything and exercises his right to silence.
There may be differences of opinion about whether such inferences should be allowed to be drawn, but it too crude a label to describe what we are about as an "abolition of the right to silence". Still less does anything in the Government's proposal affect the presumption of innocence; and of course the prosecution will still have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. All that we propose is that a court or a jury should be allowed to take into consideration evidence of the accused's silence alongside other evidence.
At one point there was a fine succession of distinguished chairmen of the Bar Council expressing their views. It is quite clear that when we reach Committee stage there will be detailed arguments to be considered. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his analysis of how we got to where we are. With respect, it seems to me that his analysis is correct. Sometimes the historical and logical basis of where we are now is possibly not so solid as some people believe it to be.
The final speech from the Opposition Front Bench seemed at the outset to have no truck whatsoever with any modification. But my general impression I shall read the speeches again more carefully - is that as the debate progressed there seemed to be less concern with what is proposed now in Clause 33 following the amendment which was originally suggested by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and which was introduced in another place. Notwithstanding what I take to be a greater willingness to see some modification there, I understand that with regard to Clause 32 there remain concerns.
The majority of the Royal Commission were concerned that changes in the right of silence might disadvantage persons who in one way or another are to be regarded as vulnerable because of their physical or mental handicap or a mental disorder. They felt that that consideration outweighed the potential benefits if inferences could be drawn from the silence of an experienced offender.
I wish to make it clear that we take that concern very seriously. But we believe that the existing safeguards should be sufficient to allay that anxiety. Any person held in police custody has rights, which include legal advice at public expense, the right to an interpreter, medical treatment if necessary, provision of meals, and so on. Interviews with persons who are mentally disordered or handicapped should take place in the presence of an appropriate adult. All interviews in police stations are tape recorded.

507
In our view those are very substantial safeguards. Some have argued in the course of the debate that the Bill should be amended so that inferences could not be drawn from a person's silence unless particular safeguards, such as tape recording, applied at the time. I do not believe that it is necessary to spell out in that way safeguards which are already embodied in statutory codes of practice. I suggest that the approach to evidence of an accused person's silence should be the same as it is for confession evidence. The courts should be able to assess the weight of the prosecution's evidence, taking into account whether or not the appropriate safeguards applied at the time.
Even if there were some appreciation that that position might be acceptable, I understand the further argument to be that no inference should be able to be drawn from a person's failure to answer questions put by a police officer before arresting or cautioning that person. As yet, I am not persuaded of the need for restriction beyond that already allowed for in Clause 32(1), but doubtless that is a matter to which we shall return in Committee. All I say is that what a person does or does not say when first encountered by the police in suspicious circumstances may be significant.
Research for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice showed that between 5 and 9 per cent. of suspects refuse to answer all police questions. More recent research carried out on behalf of ACPO showed 10 per cent. refusing to answer all questions. The ACPO research also indicates that experienced offenders with five or more convictions are more than three times as likely as suspects without convictions to refuse to answer questions during interview. The public may legitimately want to know why.
In 1990 the Northern Ireland Office carried out a limited review of the effect of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. A summary of the findings has been placed in the Library. The order fulfils an important purpose in helping to bring serious criminals to justice, including terrorists. There have been many cases in which defendants have been convicted of serious offences after inferences were drawn from their silence under police questioning or in court, alongside other evidence of guilt. We have a very real issue to consider and I have no doubt that it will be considered in great detail at Committee stage.
I wish to deal with one related matter which was raised by the distinguished chairman of the Royal Commission, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and also by my noble friend Lord Alexander. As the interim government response to the Royal Commission indicated, the Government are in principle in favour of new arrangements for dealing with pre-trial issues which would include some provision for defence disclosure. But the issue of defence disclosure links with the rather more complicated issue of prosecution disclosure and also with the more general issue of pre-trial arrangements about which the Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, had both a majority and minority report. Those are important issues still being considered by
508
government. The hope is that in due course it will be possible to bring forward a package of proposals dealing with those matters together.
All I wish to say at this stage is that it does not appear to us that developments of proposals for such disclosure and proposals that we have for some modification of the inferences which might be drawn from the silence of the accused are necessarily mutually exclusive. There is no reason why, if and when a defence disclosure scheme is brought into place, inferences should not be drawn both from the failure to indicate the line of defence at the appropriate time and from the later failure to mention a fact which was later relied upon.
The final aspect of this part of the Bill which I wish to mention is that I understood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to at least indicate some sympathy for the approach that the Government have taken in taking forward the proposal advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and his Royal Commission for the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Authority, appreciating that there was a great deal of detail that had to be fleshed out. The criteria for acceptance and the like require careful work.
I was a little surprised by what his noble friend said in summary, because I understood him to indicate a satisfaction that what was already within the public domain was sufficient to enable the official Opposition to feel confident that it could table an amendment immediately on the matter. I have a greater sympathy with the view indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We want to take this forward but it is undoubtedly extremely difficult to ensure that all the detail is properly filled in.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The problem with the position that he is taking is that neither he nor any government Minister is in a position to give a firm assurance that the legislation committee of the Cabinet will in fact include that measure in the next Queen's Speech. It is our lack of security on that point, in which we well understand the Government's position, which leads us to be unsure about what position to take in regard to what in intellectual terms is a promising approach to the problem.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have made my view clear. If the noble Lord feels that a scheme can be set down for discussion in Committee, I look forward to seeing what he puts forward. But I believe it to be an extremely complicated matter which should be considered in the greatest possible detail and taking the best possible advice.
I hope that others who have contributed to the debate will not take it amiss if I go over other themes rather more shortly. A number of contributions were made with regard to aggravated trespass and those provisions that relate to the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and to the position of gypsies and New Age travellers. It has to some extent surprised me that, while there may be concerns about the particular provisions we have incorporated in the Bill, there is not an appreciation that

509
there is a very real problem out there. We had one full and alarming instance given to us at an earlier stage of the debate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we accept that there is a direct connection between the shortfall in authorised sites and the high levels of unauthorised camping. However, the existing policy has failed to reduce the level of illegal camping by gypsies, which has scarcely fallen since 1981. The local authority site provision shows no signs of keeping pace with the growth in the population in spite of the fact that authorities have since 1978 been able to claim 100 per cent. grant in respect of their capital costs. We do not believe it is right that we should maintain an open-ended commitment to provide sites for gypsies at the taxpayers' expense. Forty-five per cent. of gypsy caravans are already on council sites. That is a reasonable level of public provision. The steps we have taken to encourage more gypsies to establish their own sites will, we trust, make up for the shortfall.
A number of questions were asked about children and points of concern were raised with regard to their health and education. Our advice to local authorities will encourage them to continue to tolerate unauthorised encampments where there is no nuisance or harm and to use their eviction powers in a humane and reasonable way. One of the matters that will of course be drawn to their attention is that the presence of children is something that ought to affect the way they take the matter forward.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that Clause 55(5)—the new power to stop and search—is unlikely to affect him. It is anticipated that it will be used in circumstances where there is an apprehension of serious violence. As long as he stays in his deer forest in Scotland he will not be affected. Clause 55 does not extend north of the Border.
The provision of aggravated trespass is one that certainly north of the Border has been controversial—inflamed, I am bound to say, by what appears to me to be a quite mischievous misrepresentation of what is intended. The Leader of the Opposition is not the only Scotsman I know who likes to take his exercise climbing the hills of Scotland. Like many others, I wish I was able to join him more often. I have certainly no intention of being party to any provision whereby those of us who enjoy such an innocent pastime would in any way find ourselves restricted because of the provision. As has been pointed out by a number of my noble friends, those who are innocently partaking in
510
countryside activities have no cause for concern. It is only when they intend to intimidate or disrupt that they may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
One very difficult and vexed issue was also raised. I refer to that clause in the Bill which bans the use of eggs from aborted foetuses for infertility treatment. By including this clause the Government recognise the strength of feeling on the topic. That was made very clear in another place where the clause was accepted without a Division. However, the authority's consultation document to which reference was made goes very much wider than the subject of this clause. For instance, in addition to those aspects relating to eggs from foetuses, the authority is seeking comments from members of the public and interested bodies and organisations on whether ovarian tissue from cadavers should be used in infertility research or treatment.
The document pays special attention to the important area of consent. Those with an interest will doubtless contribute to that consultation paper. But I do not believe that anyone should be under any misapprehension at all about the degree of public unease as regards this matter. It was for that reason, and not because it went through late at night, after midnight, that there was simply no opposition in the other place to the proposal.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne asked me about corroboration. The provisions in Clauses 30 and 31 implement the Law Commission recommendations which were supported by the Royal Commission. I can reassure him that it simplifies an unnecessarily complex area of law and also has the effect of removing the need for a potentially offensive warning in those cases where it serves no purpose at all.
This debate has been a long and valuable one. A wide variety of points have been argued cogently and with great sincerity. My noble friend and I anticipate that this will not be the only long night in which the detail; of this Bill will be considered. I hope that we have set a clear framework for the Bill and what needs to he considered. Given this lengthy Second Reading, I have no doubt that we are now properly in position for a detailed and constructive Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  SERBIA: HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SANDZAK
  SERBIA: HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SANDZAK
  UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE: UK REPORT
  UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE: UK REPORT
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CONTACTS BETWEEN PEACEKEEPING NATIONS
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CONTACTS BETWEEN PEACEKEEPING NATIONS
  THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES AND THE COMMONWEALTH
  THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES AND THE COMMONWEALTH
  THE SCOTT INQUIRY
  THE SCOTT INQUIRY
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER REQUESTS
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER REQUESTS
  CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: PARLIAMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONVENTION
  CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: PARLIAMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONVENTION
  PRISONERS: REFERENCE NUMBERS
  PRISONERS: REFERENCE NUMBERS
  UK PRISON SERVICES: MERGER PROPOSAL
  UK PRISON SERVICES: MERGER PROPOSAL
  UK PRISON COMPUTER SYSTEMS: LINKAGE PROPOSAL
  UK PRISON COMPUTER SYSTEMS: LINKAGE PROPOSAL
  HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES
  HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES
  DEFENCE PROPERTY AND LOCAL PLANS
  DEFENCE PROPERTY AND LOCAL PLANS
  GYPSY SITES AND PLANNING: CIRCULAR
  GYPSY SITES AND PLANNING: CIRCULAR
  BIRD REGISTRATION SYSTEMS: PROPOSED CHANGES
  BIRD REGISTRATION SYSTEMS: PROPOSED CHANGES
  FISHING LICENCES
  FISHING LICENCES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HEALTH WORKERS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HEALTH WORKERS