Sitting of 22 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Personal Social Services
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the money available to councils for spending on personal social services has changed over the years 1990–91 to 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Mr. John Bowis): Total standard spending for personal social services has increased in real terms by 48 per cent.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that under this Government no area of local government activity is more generously funded than the social services, particularly community care? Bearing in mind the lamentable performance of some Labour authorities, will he ensure that they behave more responsibly and sensibly? In particular, will he apply that scrutiny now to Norfolk county council?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. The figures reflect the priority that the Government place on policies for the elderly, the disabled, children and those with mental health problems, and he will have noticed the increase this year. He is also right to note the need to keep a sharp watch on councils run by the Labour and Liberal parties. The figures for this year show that Norfolk's funds for social services will increase from £72 million to £86 million. If he looks around, as I have looked around, at examples of Labour authorities running social services, he will see not only the reckless record on spending in so many areas but the appalling record on delivery. Sadly, he has only to look, as I recently have, at Labour's record in authorities such as Islington and Nottingham to see that children are at risk as a result.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am disappointed that the Minister seeks to make party political points from a policy on which we all agree. To make community care work, is
    132
    it not also necessary to look at other facilities that social services have to deliver, such as meals on wheels, home helps and particularly home adaptation for the elderly? Will he ensure that, as well as the direct programme, local authorities have the resources to carry out those services as well?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the resources for social services as a whole do not just come from the community care special transitional grant. That grant has been good news, but if he looks at the overall resources for social services, which fund all those domiciliary and day centre provisions, he will notice that over the last four years social services provision has risen from £3.6 billion to £6.4 billion. That is a Government putting their money where their policies are.
    Mr. Sims: Is not community care in most parts of the country working well, particularly where there is co-operation with the private and voluntary sector so that care packages can be put together that are suited to their recipients? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all authorities are making as much use of the private and voluntary sector as they can?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right to say that in the delivery of community care we look to good-quality provision from all sectors, including the private and voluntary sector. He asked the direct question whether I am satisfied that all authorities are ensuring that those sectors can contribute as they should. The straight answer is no. Too many obstacles are being placed in the path of good-quality private and voluntary sector provision by the dogma of Labour and Liberal authorities. We support the provision of the independent sector for reasons not of dogma but of better-quality care for people in need.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Going back to the question, does the Minister accept that there are important differences between standard spending assessments and actual levels of spending? Will he confirm the figures produced by the House of Commons Library, which show that reductions in Government support for local authority funding for social services since 1979 have cost social services departments £6.2 billion—money which was desperately needed to implement 14 new Acts of Parliament that increased the responsibilities of local authority social services? If the Government have been so generous, why did they actively encourage local authorities to introduce charges for day care, home care and a whole range of services for vulnerable elderly and disabled people—services which were previously free?
    Mr. Bowis: I do not think that within that tirade we heard a word of thanks from the hon. Gentleman for the figures for Wakefield increasing from £29 million to £40 million. That is the pattern within the overall increase from £3.6 billion to £6.4 billion for social services this year. The hon. Gentleman now needs to remember and recall, for the benefit and education of the ranks behind him, that not only are we giving money to social services, but we expect in return good use of those resources. If local authorities do not use resources effectively, they cannot deliver as good-quality services as we expect.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that last year Cheshire received an extra £10 million to help with the transition to care in the community in addition to a 21

    133
    per cent. increase in social services funding in the preceding three years? Will he take the opportunity to salute those in the national health service and in social services at ground level who are making care in the community work within the generous resources that are being made available?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cheshire is receiving an increase this year from £84 million to £97 million. He is right to praise those on the ground and in the field who, day by day, are providing good-quality services. If he wants a contrast, I invite him to join me on the Clapham omnibus that goes through my constituency eastward to Lambeth where he will see the Labour party in action with a record of decay, dereliction and scandal. That is the opposite of what we want.

    Pay Increases (Financing)
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has given to health authorities and trusts on how to raise funds to finance pay increases; and if she will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The £1.6 billion additional resources in 1994–95 announced in the unified Budget includes sufficient to allow for pay increases, provided that they are broadly in line with efficiency improvements.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she not realise that there is some absurdity in the estimate of £450 million in efficiency savings and a pay award which will cost £418 million? Is it not true that, particularly with inflation, there will be very little left for increased services? Would it not be better to scrap the wasteful market model and put the £1 billion savings into patient care?
    Mrs. Bottomley: This year, an extra £1,600 million is going into the national health service. Those are enormous sums of money together with the efficiency improvements that have been progressively made possible with the reforms. We are treating more patients more effectively. That is better for staff and better for patients.
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the trusts vary tremendously in quality and in the skill with which they manage their budgets. Will she give an assurance that, as her policy develops, she will find a way of rewarding those trusts that have made a good show and make it easier for them to meet the ever-increasing efficiency targets? There will come a time when the best run trusts will find it difficult to make the efficiency savings that she keeps demanding.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The best-run trusts are progressively moving towards devolved pay arrangements. One of the great freedoms of the trusts is that they can manage their own pay. We welcome review body reports which recognise that this a transitional year. They heralded the move towards devolved pay. I well understand that it will not be to the liking of Labour Front-Bench Members, sponsored as they are to a man by the health unions.
    Mr. Blunkett: Can we try the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) again? If £450 million has to be found through so-called efficiency
    134
    savings to meet the 4 per cent. increase in activity levels promised, and if the NHS has to find the same amount of money to implement the proposals for pay increases by efficiency savings, which of the two pledges—the increase in activity or the refusal to acknowledge that there will be major cuts—does the Secretary of State accept this afternoon?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman, having so singularly failed to convince the shadow Chancellor of his spending commitments in the document that the Labour party has recently produced, has failed to recognise that I was able to persuade our Chancellor that the national health service needed an extra £1,600 million this year. With that extra money and the efficiency savings that are now possible, I am confident that we can not only pay the staff fairly but increase patient care.
    Mr. Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend concede that the £1.6 billion extra that has been found this year for the health service represents £83 per household, which brings a total of £1,565 per household into the NHS? Why do we need to play politics at Question Time when the facts speak for themselves?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend has it. He will agree with me that it is not only the input into the NHS, but what we do with that money. There are still a large number of areas in which we can improve the efficiency of the NHS, including the Audit Commission, whether through skill mix, the use of beds, or prescribing. With a generous settlement for the health service this year, our task now is to use it efficiently and effectively for patients.

    Prescription Pricing Authority
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what downsizing she expects in the administration of the Prescription Pricing Authority in 1994–95.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): None.
    Mr. Cousins: Is the Minister not concerned about the creeping privatisation of more than 1,000 jobs in Newcastle, where prescriptions are processed more cheaply, more accurately and with more fairness than in any equivalent organisation, using the second largest computer installation in Europe to produce the best public health information based on prescriptions anywhere in the world? Is he not concerned about British public administration at its British best? Will he come and look at it in Newcastle and stop meddling?
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is not creeping privatisation. It is a market testing programme to ensure— [Interruption.] I am interested that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench do not know the difference. The market testing programme is to ensure that the taxpayer, patients and the NHS get the best value for the considerable sums of taxpayers' money that are being expended.
    Mr. Congdon: Given that the price of many drugs is less than the prescription charge, will my right hon. Friend consider, where no risks are involved, making more drugs available over the counter?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I think that that moves slightly outside the scope of the question, but, as we are already doing what my hon. Friend requests, I am able to give him that assurance with some satisfaction.

    Smoking
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the last five years in reducing the number of people who smoke.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Figures on adult smoking prevalence in England are taken from the general household survey, which is conducted every two years. In the four years to 1992, adult smoking prevalence fell by 3 per cent. to 28 per cent. of the population.
    Mr. Coombs: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's explanation of the downward trend in the general level of smoking in the population, I must point out to him that there is currently a worrying upward trend in the number of young girls in this country smoking. Bearing in mind the risks of smoking to women during pregnancy, what other measures can he introduce—apart from increases in taxation, which I welcome, and which are in stark contrast with the policy of the last Labour Government—to try to counter that extremely damaging trend?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the damaging effects that smoking can have on pregnant women and also on the children born from those pregnancies. In addition to the information that we have recently made available to all hon. Members, he will be interested to know that in the 11 to 15 age group those children whose parents do not smoke have already met our "Health of the Nation" target for the end of 1994. The problem is associated with children whose parents smoke, and they are not responding as we would wish. That underlines the serious messages coming from Conservative Members about the attitude and behaviour of parents on the behaviour of their children.
    Mr. McCartney: Since the beginning of Question Time, four of our fellow citizens have died of tobacco-related cancers. When will the Secretary of State and the Minister commit themselves to supporting the Tobacco Advertising Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), getting the tobacco industry off the Government's back and saving the lives of the 300 babies a year who are killed by passive smoking, the 300 citizens a day who die because of the tobacco industry and the 110,000 people a year who are killed unnecessarily by the industry's activities? When will the Government support the nation, and end the industry's campaign to recruit new smokers each and every day because tobacco is killing its own customers?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I must say that the hon. Gentleman put the case better on Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising Bill. The truth is that both Government and Opposition are committed to reducing tobacco consumption, and the Bill's passage will proceed in the normal way.
    The House may find one piece of information encouraging. If the other 10 European Union countries—apart from the Netherlands, which has a slightly better record of tobacco reduction over the past 20 years—had behaved as we have over that period, between 25 million
    136
    and 30 million smokers would not now be smoking, and more than 5 million people who have died prematurely in those countries would not have died if they had followed our lead.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Now that coroners can cite smoking as the cause of death, has the Department considered including the statistics in Government health warnings on tobacco products and in advertisements?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which I shall seriously consider.

    Pay Review Bodies
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future of the pay review bodies.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The role of the review bodies will be kept under review as trusts increasingly use their freedoms to determine pay locally.
    Mr. Jones: Is not the right hon. Lady hopelessly at odds with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does she really believe that there is extra money for extra pay?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should talk to his party's health spokesman. I thought that his difficulty lay in the Tippexing out of the price on the recently published policy document, which was described by The Times as "cosmetic surgery".
    I have no difficulty with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said in such a distinguished fashion, my right hon. and learned Friend has made an extra £1,600 million available for the national health service—an extra £83 per household. Let me inform the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that, since the beginning of Question Time, we have spent an extra £1.5 million on the health service.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the health service trusts are really asking for a large degree of freedom from the findings of the review bodies, so that they can reward those who have worked better and thus make overall savings for their hospitals?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely agree. We want to devolve pay as far as possible; we want to make good progress in that regard this year. The review bodies' reports commend such action, and we are looking for results from the trusts, which know that they can achieve better efficiency by adopting a more flexible approach to their staff.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State urgently review the pay agreements with dentists, in view of the rate at which they are leaving the national health service? Is she aware that, in the whole of my constituency and half the neighbouring constituency, only one dentist is now taking on NHS patients? When that dentist was approached yesterday, the earliest appointment that he could give was in July. Is the right hon. Lady aware that the emergency peripatetic dental service provides only one dentist for 105,000 patients in the area? The NHS has broken down here. Will the Secretary of State please do something about it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Dentists have received a 3 per cent. increase in their fees under the review body's recommendations. More money will go into dentistry than ever before. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, and that is why we have already commissioned the Bloomfield report on the remuneration of dentists. We want a system that is fairer to dentists, to the taxpayer and to patients. I hope that we shall be able to make more announcements on that subject before long.

    Practice Nurses
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practice nurses are employed by general practitioners; and what was the number prior to the introduction of the general practitioner contract.
    Mr. Bowis: Many practice nurses work part time; translated into whole-time equivalents, the number more than doubled from 4,632 in 1989 to 9,680 last year.
    Mr. Duncan: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome any improvement in primary health care that results from an increase in the number of practice nurses—[Interruption.] Has my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order, Mr. Campbell-Savours. Mr. Duncan.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was just explaining.
    Mr. Duncan: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read a recent Labour party policy document, which claims that the Labour party wants an improvement in primary health care? How does he reconcile that with the Labour party's wish to abolish fundholding, when fundholding practices are exactly the practices in which the improvement in primary care is taking place?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. He is right to point out the genuine support that practice nurses are able to give our GPs in helping them to meet immunisation targets, to carry out minor surgery, to take part in our asthma and diabetes programmes, and so on.
    As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I shall not be held to account for Labour's policy. Labour will be held to account for its policy and it will have to account to the taxpayer for the cost of its policy. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Labour would destroy what is good and send us a bill for £6 billion for the privilege. That is 4p on income tax for starters.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister stop indulging in petty party politics, which ill suits him, and answer the question? Is it not nonsense that in the present situation a fundholding practice in Yorkshire can go to down to Dorset to hire a practice nurse, use the same nurse and cut her pay afterwards?
    Mr. Bowis: I am glad to know that that is not a party political point. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Labour party was in office in 1979—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not want the answer to the question. At that time, we had 888 practice nurses. We now have 9,680 practice nurses. The hon. Gentleman is a schoolmaster; even in the classics department, that would work out as an increase of 900 per cent. That is quality, and that is progress for fundholders and all GPs.
    Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend said a moment ago that the Labour party would be accountable for its policies. In the next few moments, will he try to find out what those policies are, apart from the abolition—
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask a question about Government policies I will listen to him. As he knows, the Government are not responsible for the Opposition.
    Mr. Hayes: I was going on to congratulate my hon. Friend on the 900 per cent. increase in practice nurses since 1979 and the effect that the abolition of GP funding would have on that.
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. If it were Government policy to seek to understand Opposition policy, that is the one policy on which we would have to declare a failure.
    Ms. Primarolo: Is the Minister aware, before he congratulates himself, that the number of managers in general practice has increased by 34 per cent. since the introduction of the 1990 GP contract? Is he also aware of the low morale and frustration among GPs as a result of the increasing demands on their time for bureaucratic, time-wasting work? Today's survey—I am sure he is aware of its publication—shows a 9.4 per cent. increase in GP fundholders' work. When will the Government act to review immediately the GP contract and fundholders, stop wasting patients' money on bureaucracy and spend it on the patient instead, which is what we intend to do?
    Mr. Bowis: If 90 per cent. of GPs are now involved in the chronic disease management programme, if 76 per cent. are involved in minor surgery and if 86 per cent. are reaching their higher child immunisation targets, I think that we can say that GP targets are doing very nicely, thank you, without the hon. Lady's criticism. If she went into the average GP's surgery, she would meet many people who support GPs and who would resent her attack on that support. For her to dismiss all GPs as "managers", using that as a derogatory term, is ludicrous. She should remember that, in supporting GPs, we are supporting primary care and that we are doing so to the tune of a £504 million a year increase on the £206 million that we spent four years ago. Again, that is progress and, again, the hon. Lady does not like it.
    Mr. Oppenheim: How does that information square with what was being said when the GP contract was introduced? Did not the doctors' trade union—the British Medical Association—and the Opposition try to frighten the sick and vulnerable by telling them that the GP contract would increase doctors' lists and reduce the number of practice nurses? As that has clearly not happened, how seriously can we take any pronouncements by the Opposition about the NHS when they are prepared to try to frighten the sick and vulnerable so unnecessarily?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. Doctors had their concerns when the contract came into force, but we understood their concerns and listened to, and took account of, them. Doctors are now pleased, I think, that the contract is in place. It is helping them to see more patients every day of their working lives. The doctors have moved on, but the Labour party has not.

    Expert Advisory Group on Cancer
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the first report of the expert advisory group on cancer.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In the spring.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Given that the group is to investigate inequalities in cancer treatment across the United Kingdom, does the Secretary of State agree that the development of an independent cancer treatment centre in north Wales, which will be too small to sustain the number of staff with the required skill and experience, will result in the long term in a worse service for the people of Merseyside?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will know that her regional health authority in Mersey, for which the Department has an extremely high regard, is giving priority to research and treatment for cancer of which, I understand, there is a high prevalence in her constituency. I know that she will be reassured to learn that discussions are under way between officials from Mersey regional health authority and those from Wales.
    Mrs. Roe: Does not fighting cancer depend crucially on early detection? Therefore, were not the Government getting their priorities right when they ensured that Britain was the first country in the European Community to establish national breast and cervical cancer screening programmes based on a computerised call and recall system? Is not it also a success of Government policy that the GP contract, which was opposed by the Labour party, is ensuring that there is a greater uptake for cervical screening due to the provision of incentive payments?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, cancer is one of the key aspects of "The Health of the Nation" strategy and one in which we are determined to make further progress by the turn of the century. My hon. Friend rightly commends the GP contract, characterised by the Opposition as "too heroic" for the targets to be met. In 1990, 66 per cent. of GPs met the higher cervical cancer target: the figure is now 83 per cent., with 97 per cent. of GPs receiving target payments. I commend the GPs, but I also commend the new GP contract.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Secretary of State aware that a staggering every 30 minutes, one woman dies from breast cancer in this country and that that is the highest rate in the world? Does she accept that more resources will have to be found to ensure that every woman with breast cancer sees a specialist and that we establish a national standard of care to prevent any more unnecessary deaths?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I share the hon. Lady's concern about breast cancer, which causes 16,000 or more deaths every year. Seven per cent. of national health service spending goes on cancer services. The breast cancer screening programme has been a formidable success, with 70 per cent. of women now taking up the invitation to be screened, but I should like the other 30 per cent. also to take up that invitation.

    United Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget estimate for the United Leeds hospital trust.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The forecast expenditure by the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust for the current year is £165 million.
    Mr. Battle: The Minister will know of the recent health ombudsman's report, which says that Leeds general infirmary failed in its duty to a 55-year-old neurological patient who was discharged against his family's interest into private nursing care. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that there are no other patients in Leeds or elsewhere in private nursing care who ought to be properly and fully cared for by the national health service? Is not that appalling episode a classic example of the privatisation of the NHS, for which patients and their families are paying too high a price?
    Mr. Sackville: We have made it clear that we acknowledge that that was a rare but unacceptable case in which procedures were not properly followed. We have made clear to all health authorities and trusts the proper discharge arrangements that should be followed.
    Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend will remember the debt that I owe to the national health service and to the Leeds general infirmary and its superb services, which are also available to my constituents. Will he ensure that the specialist services available in the United Leeds hospital trust are available over as wide a range as possible?
    Mr. Sackville: We all rejoice in my hon. Friend's recovery. I remind him that I have visited the trust three times. I went to announce the new £70 million hospital for the Leeds general infirmary in 1992, and I went twice last year. I turned the sod, as they say in Yorkshire, for the new Chapel Allerton hospital, and then attended the topping-out ceremony only a few weeks later. On none of those happy occasions did I see the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) or any of his colleagues. Why? Because they were all skulking in some National Union of Public Employees office, planning new attacks on the NHS and all those who work in it.

    Sunderland Health Authority
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to reduce beds in the Sunderland health authority; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Sackville: I understand that Sunderland health authority's five-year plans propose that acute services in Sunderland should eventually be concentrated on the Sunderland district general hospital site.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware of a report by Professor Keri Davies recommending that the number of beds in Sunderland be reduced from the present 1,600 to 800 or 900? Is he aware that the health authority members were asked to approve that report without being shown it, that it has not been made available to the community health council and that I, the local Member of Parliament, cannot obtain a copy? What confidence can the people of

    141
    Sunderland have that the changes in their health service will be properly managed when the health authority behaves in such a way? What assurance can the Minister give them that any changes made will be properly discussed in public?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman should know that the actual level of staffed beds is 1,150, so the numbers that he gave for the reduction are inaccurate. He should also know that Sunderland has the lowest waiting times anywhere in the northern region. It is not surprising that, with the growth of day surgery and the new day surgery unit on the district general hospital site, in-patient times will fall, and there will be a lower demand for beds. The hon. Gentleman must realise that if there are two or three hospitals and it is clear from projections of bed demand that at some time in the future we shall be able to treat all the patients better and more effectively in one hospital, it is necessary to take action. If we did not, we should be asking the national health service to spend money on buildings rather than on patients. That is no way to run a health service.

    Ministerial Visits
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to visit the Lambeth community care centre to discuss an increase in services.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health visited the Lambeth community centre on 5 February 1993. Any increase in services at the centre is dependent on local health authorities and fundholders.
    Ms Hoey: I hope that the Minister will take the time to visit that unique centre in Lambeth, which serves local people extremely well and is highly needed and valued in the area. Will he a commitment to expanding the services so that a second community care centre can be opened in the Brixton area, with a special remit for work with sickle-cell anaemia, a disease of which there is a large preponderance of sufferers in my constituency?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will be pleased to know that some time ago I told my private office that I should like to try to fit in a visit to the Lambeth centre during the year, diary permitting, because I, too, want to see the excellent work conducted at that centre. She will know that, with the London implementation group and the primary health forum, we are considering a variety of ways in which to deliver increased primary health care and one of those is developing other centres.
    Mr. David Evans: Does the Minister think that Lambeth ought to increase its services, since some of that lot over there have taken to being in bushes in Belgravia during the night—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to remain within order. I remind him that the question is specifically about Lambeth community care centre and I do not think that there are bushes outside that building.
    Mr. Evans: I think that the Lambeth community care centre needs to instruct that lot to have caps and mufflers to keep them warm when they are hiding in bushes.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that extra resources are devoted to the provision of community care in Lambeth. It will be for those locally to decide how best to use those extra resources.
    Mr. Skinner: On the question of community care in Lambeth, or anywhere else, let me make it plain that I am prepared to have my conduct examined at the Dispatch Box if every Cabinet Minister will have his conduct examined there. Better still, let us have an election and let the people judge. After that, I shall be sat over there and some of those Conservative Members will want a fresh job.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels better for getting that off his chest, but it has nothing to do with the Lambeth community centre.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is difficult to follow that. In accepting the need for support and care in Lambeth and in other inner-city areas and for a strategic approach to tackling drug abuse, would the Minister reflect on his actions and those of his Department when they received a report, commissioned in January of the past year, which suggested the need for a strategic approach to drug abuse? As that report came up with proposals to make the Government's actions central to such a strategy, they sent it back to be rewritten. May I have an assurance that what will be published will be the original report from Roger Howard Associates and not the fiddled report, which denied Government responsibility for a strategy against the important issue of drug abuse in our community?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As is almost always the case, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The report was commissioned to investigate the provision of local services. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced just before Christmas the setting up of a co-ordinating unit to help the Government in combating drugs. There will be a central Government strategy. What we need is a local and regional strategy to supplement it and it was on that that the report was commissioned to advise.

    North West Thames (Treatments)
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the North West Thames region in increasing the proportion of hospital treatment carried out on a day case basis.
    Mr. Sackville: Since 1979, the number of day case patients has risen from 37,000 to 132,000.
    Mr. Clappison: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Is not it the case that day surgery has many clinical benefits and allows resources to be used to treat more patients? Given that there is still scope for more day case surgery in inner London, and given the relative cost of hospital treatment there, would not it be desirable for London hospitals to make further progress with day surgery and allow resources to be released to serve patients in the rest of the Thames regions?
    Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend. Day surgery is popular with patients and is now recognised as the best procedure for many surgical interventions. The fact that it has gone up so fast in the North West Thames

    143
    region is good news for my hon. Friend's constituents and good news for the region, and I defy any Labour Members to say anything different.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Prime Minister aware that a schoolboy was killed last year in Auchinleck in my constituency, another was killed last week in Biggar, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), and there is widespread concern throughout the United Kingdom that school buses have no seat belts but three children to a seat, with no attendants? Will the Prime Minister order immediate action to prevent further deaths, without waiting for Europe to act, or is he more concerned about saving money than saving lives?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's last remark was unworthy and I hope that he will withdraw it. I am aware of the tragic incident that occurred last week in Scotland. There will be an inquiry into that death. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to report to me on the basis of that inquiry so that we can examine whether action is appropriate.
    Mr. Dover: Was not one of the best achievements of the Conservative Administration the creation of enterprise zones? Many of us welcome the latest plans for such zones to be set up where coal mining is running down. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with other Ministers the possibility of creating enterprise zones in areas such as Chorley—where defence industries are running down as a result of the peace dividend—because of capital allowances, no business rates and no planning restrictions?
    The Prime Minister: I had the opportunity of looking at some of the work done in the enterprise zone in Lanarkshire just last week. I certainly can confirm that they have been very successful. In areas that face particular difficulties because of substantial job losses, perhaps because of the collapse of a single employer or industry, we look across the board to see what help can be given. Enterprise zones are an important part of that, but not necessarily the whole of it.
    Mr. John Smith: Following the success achieved so far in stopping the killing in Sarajevo as a result of the threat of military action, will the British Government adopt similar firm initiatives to end the sieges of the proposed safe areas of Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Srebrenica and Bihac? Will the Government also support urgent action to bring relief and protection to the inhabitants of Mostar?
    The Prime Minister: We have been examining what can be done following the successful action at Sarajevo.
    144
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed that in Paris yesterday. Even as we speak, a meeting on that matter is going on among political directors and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing it further with President Clinton in the early part of next week. What we wish to see is the relief of the United Nations contingent in Srebrenica by the end of February—within a week—and we hope to open Tuzla airport in the first week of March.
    Mr. John Smith: I hope that the Prime Minister and the other countries will maintain the momentum that recent events have created. In that connection, is not it clear that further troops will be required? If General Rose, who is the commander on the spot, asks for further troops, ought not the Government not hesitate in giving him further support from his own country?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point of developing plans further, we think that the UN should develop plans for other towns urgently. Mostar, Vitez and Maglaj are the three at which one would look first. The situation in each of those towns is different. In Mostar and Vitez, for example, the conflict is between Croats and Muslims, but all of them undoubtedly are in need of desperate assistance and relief. We hope to use the example of Sarajevo to build new impetus in the peace negotiations and the closer involvement of the United States and Russia will help that.
    As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point about troops, we shall examine that matter when there are requests. Those requests are directed not just at the UK, which has made a substantial contribution already —as has France—but at the whole range of countries. We hope that they will all see what special assistance they may be able to give.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Regardless of the outcome of the vote last night, does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful scenes at St Stephen's entrance were an affront to parliamentary democracy?
    The Prime Minister: The House yesterday had the opportunity to examine in detail a matter of great complexity and importance for many people. My judgment is that the House came to the right decisions, and I support the decision that was taken. I regret the difficulties that occurred outside the House yesterday and I hope that, after reflection, there will not be a repeat.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Justice Scott, who said today that public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill affair were used by Ministers to withhold information that was trivial and which there was no sensible public justification in withholding?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen those remarks by Lord Justice Scott, nor have I seen the context in which they were made, nor whether it was a statement or a point put to a witness for response. On this and any other point related to the Scott inquiry, I will say that I set up that inquiry so that Lord Justice Scott could report. I am content to leave it to him to report and I do not intend to comment on those matters until such time as I have that report.
    Mr. Bellingham: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the Financial Times survey which shows

    145
    that, of the top 25 European companies, a staggering 14 are British? Is not that remarkable fact another sign of our growing economic strength and should not we be proud of it? Will my right hon. Friend tell the Opposition to stop running the country down?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt among any of our European partners about the strength of the economic recovery in this country. It is steady and shows every sign of continuing at a time when many other European countries still face great difficulties. My hon. Friend is entirely right that many of the largest and most effective international companies in Europe are British.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Prime Minister share the concern of the British people that the future of Britain's last car manufacturer was determined yesterday by a Japanese company and a German company without any reference to long-term British industrial interest? What will the Prime Minister do to secure the future of Rover? Will he simply come to the Dispatch Box again and say that this important matter of industrial strategy which is of concern to the public has nothing whatsoever to do with him?
    The Prime Minister: A few years ago, there was not a remotely profitable and worthwhile car industry in this country at all. We now have a series of companies providing a lot of jobs, making a lot of profits and exporting. It will not be long before we are net exporters of motor cars, and that could not possibly have happened but for inward investment which is itself related to the policies of the Government.
    Mr. Devlin: With regard to the comments by the chairman of Honda, reported in today's newspapers, that the British are no longer serious about manufacturing, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassure the heads of Japanese businesses, particularly those that have already invested heavily in the north of England and south Wales, that Britain's future lies with manufacturing and that the British are serious about producing cars, fridges and other solid goods?
    The Prime Minister: Just yesterday, Honda Motor Europe publicly confirmed its intention to develop Swindon as
    "a centre of manufacturing excellence"
    and to continue its work in helping improve the performance of United Kingdom component suppliers, in particular, to help them to win export orders to Honda in Japan. There is no doubt whatever about the position of the Government. We believe that manufacturing industry is important and requires support. It is getting support and it is beginning to export abroad on a scale we have not previously seen. That support and assistance will continue.
    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Corston: Is the Prime Minister aware that "Social Trends 1994", a Government publication, reveals that as a direct consequence of Tory Government policy since 1979 the average disposable income of the richest 20 per cent. of households has increased by £6,000 a year while the 20 per cent. of households at the bottom of the income scale have had their average disposable income cut by £3,000 a year? Does not that reveal the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister's professed commitment to creating a nation at ease with itself?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady was being selective in what she said—[Interruption.] She was selective from the report. The net disposable income of people at all ranges of income has increased and the proportion of total tax take paid by those on top incomes has increased, not been reduced.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to convey the thanks, congratulations and good wishes of the House to General Sir Michael Rose? Do not the events of the past fortnight show that firm, clear, decisive leadership—political and military—produces results?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the success that General Rose has had. I shall be happy to convey my hon. Friend's congratulations to him.
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Denham: Since the Conservatives came to power, everyone who is paid less than £64,000 a year has seen his total tax bill go up, but everyone who is paid more than £64,000 a year has seen his tax bill go down. Why?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about tax bills—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am about to answer in my own way. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about tax bills, why did he and his colleagues vote against every tax reduction in the last decade?
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his positive remarks a moment ago about manufacturing industry in Britain and particularly for what he said about the contribution of Honda in Swindon to manufacturing in Britain? Will he confirm that it remains the policy of the Government, in the interests of manufacturing industry in Britain, to oppose the social chapter and do everything possible to resist moves towards a single currency in Europe? Will he further confirm that Conservative candidates in the European elections later this year will fight on a manifesto that clearly rejects such damaging centralising tendencies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that. The Government's position on the matter is totally clear. When the European People's party publishes its manifesto later this week neither the Conservative party nor Conservative

    147
    Members of the European Parliament will be bound by that document, although there will be much in it with which we shall agree. On the question of a single currency and the social chapter, our policy is entirely clear. So, alas, is the policy of the Labour party, which would swallow a single
    148
    currency immediately, irrespective of the economic damage that it would cause, and would accept the social chapter, with its very damaging consequences for productivity and jobs.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to raise with you matters relating to the Sessional Orders of the House, which are passed at the beginning of each Parliament and which, among other things, lay on the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis a duty to keep open the roads in the vicinity of the House and to ensure free passage of hon. Members, and to prevent disorder in the vicinity.
Given the ugly scenes that occurred last night, which were referred to during Prime Minister's Question Time, will you, Madam Speaker, please examine what happened and what clearly went wrong? Can you say whether it is still the policy that no demonstrations whatsoever are allowed in the immediate vicinity of the House?
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to this matter?
Mr. McFall: No.
Madam Speaker: In that case, let me first respond to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).
I have already received a report on last night's disturbance, during which violence was used and access to and from Parliament was obstructed. Behaviour of this kind cannot be excused, and is, indeed, an embarrassment to the larger number of people who simply want to express their opinion peacefully. The police are well used to regulating access to the House to those who wish to lobby Members in a way that is consistent with the very important right of free movement, into and out of the House, enjoyed by Members. The Sessional Order issued to the Commissioner of Police requires the streets to be kept open for this purpose.
This requirement was not able to be met at all times last night, and I am sure that lessons will be learned by the police that will reduce the possibility of a recurrence. But I emphasise that last night's disturbance was the sole responsibility of those who resorted to violence, and I should like to express the House's thanks to the police officers who contained events and, in the course of their duty, suffered violence themselves.
Mr. McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that the Sheriff Court Fees (Amendment) (No. 2) Order was approved on 9 February. The order imposes court fees on petitioners in Scotland. Two days later, in Paisley sheriff court, Sheriff Stoddart refused to impose the £53 fee on a petitioner, saying that the fees contained ambiguities and imprecisions. He criticised the whole idea as offensive to the concept of the availability of justice in the court on equal terms. As a result, the Scottish Courts Administration has issued guidance to sheriffs, saying that it is taking legal advice on the matter. This brings the whole statutory instrument system into disrepute.
150
Given the importance for justice in Scotland and the fact that people have already paid these fees, can you, Madam Speaker, advise me further on the issue, so that we may help the many thousands of people in Scotland who are trapped by this legislation, which the Government introduced needlessly?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that I am not able to give legal advice of that nature or, for that matter, of any other nature. Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I hope that something may come of the matter as a result of his point of order.

Statutory Instruments, &c
Madam Speaker: I call motion No. 1.
Hon. Members: Object.
Madam Speaker: Do those Members who are objecting intend to do so on all these motions?
Hon. Members: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I declare motions 1 to 9 to be negatived:

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Bulgaria) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Czech Republic) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Slovak Republic) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and Romania) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
That the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
REDUNDANT CHURCHES
That the draft Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Eggs from Foetuses (Prohibition of Use)
3.34 pm
Dame Jill Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of eggs taken from aborted human foetuses for fertilisation procedures; and for connected purposes.
This small Bill is of great importance—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. May I hold the hon. Lady up for a moment? She is well accustomed to projecting her voice, but I ask for some order so that we may hear what she has to say from the start. Will the House please come to order?
Dame Jill Knight: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I shall begin by saying what the Bill is not about—it is not intended to stop research or to stop the use of human eggs donated by women. The Bill is intended to prohibit the use, for fertilisation purposes, of eggs from human aborted foetuses.
I am introducing the Bill for several reasons. First, it is totally repugnant that an unborn child—a child who was deliberately prevented from being born—should be plundered to facilitate the birth of another child. It must surely be against the most basic of human rights that an unwanted child should be destroyed and used to create a wanted child.
Secondly, we are told that there is a shortage of human eggs. Private hospitals apparently want them so badly that they are offering free treatment in return. We are assured that that is legal. Millions of women in this land are perfectly able to donate eggs willingly for that purpose.
I warn the House that if the use of foetal eggs is not made illegal, women will be offered money to get pregnant and to have the child aborted so that the eggs can be subtracted and used to meet the shortage. Women might be offered more money to leave the abortion until a later stage, when the eggs are "riper"—to use a medical term.
If the use of foetal eggs becomes common practice, what a thriving market might develop in other organs. If eggs are okay, why not livers, hearts, kidneys or corneas? Those are also in desperately short supply, and so, for many people, is money.
Thirdly, it does not take much imagination to envisage the effect on a sensitive child—or even an insensitive one —when he learns that his mother never lived, but was destroyed at the behest of his grandmother before he was even born. A woman who became pregnant after. the procedure, even though she had sought it and agreed to it, might well have nightmares during the later stages of her pregnancy, which is often a nervy time, as she pondered the fact that she was carrying a dead child's baby. It would indeed be a terrible thought.
152
Fourthly, the law says that a woman must give written consent before her eggs are used to create a baby. It is difficult to see how an unborn girl foetus could be prevailed upon to sign the form, and it will not do to say that the foetus's mother could do so instead. For good reasons, the law does not say that the grandmother of a baby created by in vitro fertilisation can sign—it must be the egg-donating mother, and that is impossible.
There is confusion about whether the law allows the use of eggs from aborted foetuses. It has been said that it is unlawful, but I have searched hard and cannot find any statute that says so. Certainly it is not covered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was questioned twice on the matter and was unable to say where in that or any other Act it was stated that using eggs from human foetuses for fertilisation was illegal.
Of course, the proposal is in its very early stages, but there is no doubt that it will become possible. It does not always follow that, if scientific practices are possible, they are desirable. The HFEA is currently asking the public to give their opinion on the matter, so that the authority can reach a decision about whether licences should be granted. Surely the authority would not be doing that if the practice were legal already?
I find it chilling that the authority is reported as saying, "Well, yes, the idea does sound rather repulsive at first, but think about it and you will get used to it pretty soon." That sounds as if it is trying to condition us to the idea and the probability that it will choose to legalise the practice, but how can it be right that a matter of life and death, which touches the deepest human feelings and is of extremely wide public interest, should be decided by a committee? Many of its members are erudite and some are even expert, but they do not represent or have to answer to the people of Britain. Let the House decide about the matter. Since the authority has asked for an opinion, let the House give one.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Alan Beith, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Derek Enright, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Phil Gallie, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mrs. Ann Winterton.

EGGS FROM FOETUSES (PROHIBITION OF USE)
Dame Jill Knight accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the use of eggs taken from aborted human foetuses for fertilisation procedures; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
Orders of the Day

  Intelligence Services Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.41 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving do so quickly and quietly, and share the joke with me later?
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Intelligence Services Bill fulfils the pledge of the Prime Minister to put the Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, and the Government communications headquarters on a statutory basis. It complements the arrangements in the Security Service Act 1989, so that, if the Bill is passed, for the first time, all three security and intelligence agencies will be covered by a statutory regime.
  The Bill is the latest in a series of steps marking the Government's commitment to greater openness on security and intelligence matters. To change the metaphor and make it more personal, I am just a little proud to be the parent of three related reforming measures. The first two of my offspring are flourishing, and I hope that the Bill, the third of the trio, will soon follow the others at the font to receive the blessing of Parliament.
  The first of those offspring was the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Then came the Security Service Act 1989, which, as Home Secretary, I introduced to the House, placing the Security Service on a statutory basis. The Bill closely follows the provisions of that Act. In May 1992, the Prime Minister avowed the existence of the SIS and made a commitment to introduce legislation for the service. That July, he said that legislation would also be introduced for GCHQ.
  Greater openness continued to follow. In June 1992, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced that Joint Intelligence Committee papers would no longer be withheld from publication indefinitely as they had been in the past. Since then, Joint Intelligence Committee records that have been cleared for release from the JIC's inception in 1936 to August 1945 have been made available in the Public Record Office. In the past 18 months, the Government have reviewed and released other previously retained security and intelligence-related records.
  I have recently agreed that the records of the Foreign Office's information research department, which was closed in 1977, should be reviewed for release. I I hope that it will be possible to release the first batch of those interesting papers by the autumn.
  In July 1993, the Government published a booklet about the Security Service, making available for the first time some information about its role and structure. That was followed in October by a booklet explaining the country's central intelligence machinery and detailing—again, for the first time—the terms of reference of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
  154
  In November last year, the Prime Minister announced for the first time the overall scale of expenditure by the security and intelligence agencies. He also announced that, from April this year, all expenditure on those agencies would be carried on a single published intelligence vote.
  There will always be hon. and right hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who ask for more. That is their right, but I hope that, before they press us to do more, they will acknowledge that we have travelled a long way down this road—further than I suspect they, and certainly I, thought likely seven or eight years ago. This Bill is a further big step. Indeed, it is the next logical step in this policy of greater openness in security and intelligence matters, wherever possible.
  I emphasise the importance of the words "wherever possible". We believe that the public should have access to information on security and intelligence matters when that does not pose a threat to national security or the operation of the agencies. But, by their very nature, most security and intelligence matters should remain secret. Obviously, to reveal them would be to put at risk national security, the success of operations and, in some cases, the lives of the men and women who take part in those operations and work for the security and intelligence agencies. That is why successive Governments have made the point that they cannot comment on the agencies' operational matters. The introduction of the Bill does not change that policy.
  Given the clear need, which I hope and believe most hon. Members will recognise, to retain the secrecy of most intelligence and security information, we believe that, in the circumstances of 1994, there should be proper arrangements for accountability. That is why we have decided that, in addition to providing a commissioner and a tribunal for complaints—machinery contained in the Security Service Act 1989—the Bill should include for the first time provision for an oversight committee of parliamentarians to scrutinise the expenditure, administration and policy of all three security and intelligence agencies.
  I shall return to that matter later. May I just add here that the chief of SIS and the director of GCHQ made it clear at a press briefing that I held when the Bill was published last November that they and the staff of the two agencies, for which I am primarily responsible under the Prime Minister, welcome the Bill, particularly the element of parliamentary oversight that it introduces.
  Mr. David Winnick: Time and again in recent years, we have been told that it is out of the question to have any form of parliamentary scrutiny, that there was ministerial control, and that Ministers were answerable to Parliament. Although the line has slightly changed, why have the Government decided not to accept the kind of parliamentary scrutiny unanimously recommended by the Home Affairs Committee?
  Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that what is now being produced is totally inadequate—an appointment by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, with the committee reporting to the Prime Minister first? It will not satisfy those of us who are determined that, sooner or later, we will have the parliamentary scrutiny that other democracies have and which was recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
  Mr. Hurd: The Bill will not satisfy those who believe that Parliament, the public or the media should be able to scrutinise the operations of the security and intelligence agencies. [Interruption.] That is not what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is the direction in which he wishes to push us. I shall return to the question of oversight in a minute. We have moved substantially from the position that I advocated as Home Secretary in 1989, and I will explain why. Before the hon. Gentleman pushes for more, he should analyse what is in the Bill and the reasons for it. However, I shall return to that point in a minute.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall return to the question of oversight later, but perhaps my hon. Friend wishes to intervene now? It is his bisque.
  Mr. Shepherd: I wished simply to ask whether the members of the committee would be "designated persons" within the terms of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
  Mr. Hurd: I think that they would have to be, but perhaps I could check that point, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will confirm it, or deny it if I am wrong.
  I should like to deal with something that perplexes some critics of the agencies—their importance in the world of 1994. It is a world which has changed, but which remains deeply turbulent and dangerous. Having looked at it with some thoroughness, we are clear there is a role for the agencies alongside the armed services and diplomatic services in protecting and furthering the interests of Britain and its citizens at home and abroad.
  The threats change—as they have throughout history —and they have changed again in the past few years. They include nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional proliferation of weapons; they include terrorism and the threat to our armed forces in times of conflict, serious crime, espionage and sabotage. I know that there is scepticism in some quarters, so perhaps I could give some examples of those threats and how the agencies help to tackle them.
  Clearly, weapons proliferation is a substantial threat following the break-up of the Soviet Union and its arsenal of weapons. We tried to tackle it at a diplomatic level by negotiating treaties, but intelligence helps us to act against unscrupulous Governments who aim to break those treaties.
  Perhaps I should illustrate the value of intelligence work in that field. Our agencies recently provided one of our European neighbours with intelligence about a major construction contract being undertaken in a developing country by one of its national companies. Our agency was able to show from its intelligence that the proposed facilities were meant for the production of weapons of mass destruction, and as a result of that intelligence, the allied Government concerned was persuaded to frustrate the contract.
  The terrorist threat is real and chilling. I do not need to give the House the list of terrorist murders and murderous attempts in recent years. I should have to add to that list the attacks which did not take place and the lives that were saved if I were to illustrate fully the work of the agencies.
  Perhaps I can also give an example in that field. At the time of the Gulf war, the intelligence agencies gained
  156
  access to premises occupied by a known terrorist who was living under an assumed name in the capital of a developing country. The agencies got hold of some crucial details about his contacts and associations; they passed that intelligence to the law enforcement agencies in a western European country that he was known to visit, so he was watched. As a result of that surveillance, the life of an ambassador of one of our allies was saved, because the terrorist and his group were preparing to assassinate him.
  On serious crime, intelligence can be particularly important as a protection during periods of armed conflict —for example, in the Gulf war in 1991.
  Intelligence about the capabilities of our enemies saved the lives of British service men and women. The contribution that the intelligence agencies make to the safety of our armed forces is greatly appreciated by those forces themselves.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I appreciate the point that the Foreign Secretary is making about the importance of the security services in all these serious areas, but what concerns one or two people who watched what happened in the House of Lords was the reluctance of the Government to define the serious nature of these events as opposed to less serious ones.
  Many people are concerned that the security forces occasionally get involved in matters that do not come into that category of seriousness. Will the Foreign Secretary at least consider in Committee whether definitions could be written into the legislation to make it clear that the security services should be concerned with the serious threats to the state, not less serious issues?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but if he looks at the Bill, he will see that it is full of safeguards in that respect. If he looks at the provision for warrants, authorisations and the matters that now must come to the Secretary of State—with the commissioner standing over my shoulder, ensuring that what I do is in accordance with the Bill—he will see that, for the first time, the safeguards will be there.
  The way in which the two agencies—the SIS and GCHQ—operate is already in line with what the hon. Gentleman wants. What will be new under the Bill is that the law and the commissioner will be able to ensure that that is so. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point. Those agencies should not concern themselves with trivial matters.
  To give another example, serious crime is increasingly international. Transnational criminal organisations operate in various countries, seeking to escape the reaches of domestic law enforcement agencies. There, our intelligence agencies support the efforts of the police and Customs and Excise to prevent and detect such serious crime.
  A British law enforcement agency recently asked the SIS to help monitor a large consignment of drugs from a developing country believed to be destined for the UK. The service could not rely on the co-operation of the authorities in the country concerned, so it sent an officer there under an assumed identity.
  Soon after his arrival, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, the officer was able to identify and enlist the support of an employee of the transport organisation which was innocently handling the movement of that consignment. With the help of that employee, the

  157
  consignment was monitored to a point outside the country, where it was seized through international action, and the gang of traffickers involved were arrested.
  There is the provision for action—the tasking of our intelligence agencies—in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Those who have followed these matters know that that is a well-worn provision. It is in existing legislation, and is provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights. It sometimes causes puzzlement as to what it can mean.
  Examples of where it might be useful are where there is instability in a part of the world where substantial British economic interests were at stake, or where there was a crisis or a huge difficulty about the continued supply of a commodity on which our economy depended.
  The House will notice that the Bill restricts the activities of the SIS and GCHQ for safeguarding the economic well-being of the country to the acts or intentions of persons outside the United Kingdom. The agencies may not and do not get involved in domestic economic, commercial or financial affairs.
  Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way on this point, because the matter of control of the agency and the procedures to control it are quite important.
  What steps are taken to ensure that the agency does not get involved in unauthorised operations? Where such unauthorised operations have taken place, what steps are taken to ensure that it does not happen again? What disciplinary action is taken? Given the nature of the operation that we are dealing with, how can we be sure that operations subsequently described by Ministers as unauthorised really were unauthorised?
  Mr. Hurd: Legislation relating to the Security Service is already on the statute book. I know of no evidence to suggest that the machinery set up by the House in 1989 has proved inadequate or defective, or that security operations have fallen within that category.
  The Bill primarily concerns the other two agencies, for which there is currently no statutory provision. It introduces statutory arrangements for warrants, authorisation, the appointment of a commissioner and the establishment of a tribunal—that is the novelty, in comparison with the previous arrangements—for an oversight committee. That is quite an apparatus of control.
  I am already consulted if either agency wishes to authorise particularly sensitive operations, but that is not a statutory arrangement; it is just what happens. The Bill proposes that the arrangements should be elaborated, refined, extended and put on the statute book, and that machinery should be introduced to deal with any breaches.
  As I have said, the commissioner will look over my shoulder, and the tribunal will examine any complaint from any member of the public that the agencies might have acted without authorisation in the manner described by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). That is a big step towards securing what he wants.
  Before we become too enmeshed in the question of possible breaches, difficulties and dangers, I think it right to record our appreciation of the loyalty, courage and hard work of those involved. It has not been possible to do so
  158
  before. That work is very dangerous, and provides few rewards—in the form of public recognition, or in any other form.
  Most hon. Members know one or more of the individuals involved; it should be pointed out that their work, although unrecognised, is as essential to the public good as much of the other work that is constantly praised in the House. The terrorist attack that is prevented, the potential crime that is disrupted and the vital intelligence that is conveyed to our armed forces or aid workers do not make the news; but that work is essential to public well-being.
  Let me clear up a point that is often raised, and was almost touched on by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. The SIS and GCHQ do not work to their own agenda, invent their own requirements for information or act independently without the prior knowledge and clearance of Ministers. As the Bill makes clear, they are both directly accountable to the Secretary of State; they must remain politically neutral, and they operate only within strict parameters. They do not invent adventures of their own; they carry out tasks in support of specific policies.
  This is where the Joint Intelligence Committee comes in. It lays on the SIS and GCHQ detailed requirements and tasking, which are reviewed annually in a process with which I am now familiar: it combines rigorous analysis of the requirements for secret intelligence with a great deal of consultation with what are known as customer departments. From that rigorous process emerges a list of requirements, which must then be approved by Ministers.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I warn the Home Secretary that I shall not be present for the winding-up speeches? The Standing Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill sits morning, noon and night.
  May I ask which Ministers knew about the activity of the security services—albeit 10 years ago—in relation to the miners' strike? As, I believe, the only Member of the present Parliament who appeared for an hour and a half before the Franks committee dealing with the Falklands, may I ask in what circumstances a Minister is informed? Lord Franks and his colleagues were extremely confused about the issue.
  Mr. Hurd: Both the examples that the hon. Gentleman gives have been thrashed out on the Floor of the House over and over again, and Lord Franks issued his report.
  I would simply say, from my experience, which does not cover either of the examples that the hon. Gentleman mentions, that there was somewhat more consultation in the Home Office even before the passage of the Security Service Act 1989, but the Security Service Act is plain and has worked well, I think, for five years. I find now, in my present job, that there has been increasing consultation of the Secretary of State when operations are proposed that are sensitive—that could cause difficulty.
  I have never known an operation to be proposed in any of the three services that infringes the principle of political neutrality. I find, however, that there is an increasing tendency to consult the Secretary of State on what might be called sensitive or controversial matters. That will now be enshrined in the Bill because of the procedures laid down in the Bill for warrants, in the case of operations against property, and for authorisations covering a rather wider field.

  159
  The Bill provides for ministerial control of the way in which the agencies act to fulfil those tasks by, as have said, a system of warrants and authorisations. In addition to those statutory provisions, the SIS will continue the existing procedure that I mentioned, whereby my specific clearance is sought for more sensitive operations.
  I shall run through the Bill quickly for the convenience of the House, as is normal on Second Reading.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will get on.
  Mr. Mandelson: On the subject of ministerial control, which I think is very important and to which I shall return if I am lucky enough to be called, will the Foreign Secretary say, in terms of the Bill, what powers he believes the Intelligence and Security Committee will have to summons Ministers, which Ministers, and how frequently? What depth of questioning does he believe it will be acceptable for the committee to engage in for proper ministerial accountability to that committee to be secured?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall mention the oversight committee later, but its job will be to examine expenditure and administration of the three agencies. The committee will therefore be able to examine and to take evidence, not as a court of law but as a matter of fact, from the agencies and those people who are responsible for the agencies—
  Mr. Mandelson: And policy?
  Mr. Hurd: — and policy, but not operations. When there are—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Foreign Secretary dealing with scrutiny now? I thought it was coming later.
  Mr. Hurd: No; I will discuss that in greater detail, but I am answering, in sum, the hon. Gentleman's points.
  Clauses 1 and 3 provide for the continuation of the SIS —it is referred to in the Bill as "the Intelligence Service" —and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham under the authority of the Secretary of State, and set out their respective functions. They provide that those functions will be exercisable in the interests of national security only, with special reference to the defence and foreign policies of the kingdom, in the interests of the kingdom's economic well-being, or for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime.
  Clauses 2 and 4 provide for the appointments of the chief of SIS and the director of GCHQ and set out their responsibilities. They place specific requirements on the heads of agencies, regarding obtaining and disclosing information—both are important—and reporting to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and they require the agencies to remain politically neutral.
  Clauses 5 and 6 provide for the Secretary of State to issue warrants authorising entry on, or interference with, property or wireless telegraphy in pursuit of the agency's functions. They replace the similar warrant provisions of the Security Service Act, and they make warrants available in respect of the functions of all three security and intelligence agencies.
  160
  Clause 7 is a provision for warrants and for authorisations. It provides for the Secretary of State to authorise certain acts abroad that are necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of SIS.
  I hope that the House will agree that those three clauses ensure that certain actions can be undertaken by the agencies under the specific authority of Ministers only.
  Clauses 8, 9 and 10 provide three important safeguards on the activities of the agencies. First, clause 8 establishes a commissioner. That is familiar to the House, because there is already a Security Service Commissioner. The commissioner will review the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers to issue warrants and authorisations for SIS and GCHQ.
  In my experience as Home Secretary, and latterly as Foreign Secretary, the role of commissioner is not a cipher. The Commissioner of the Security Services oversees rigorously and the commissioner in charge of the Interception of Communications Act 1986, with whom I deal now, oversees rigorously the way in which I use the powers entrusted to me by statute. There is nothing routine, scanty or inadequate about the way in which the commissioner undertakes his task.
  The commissioner will also help the tribunal, about which I shall speak in a moment, to deal with complaints. The Bill places a statutory duty on all members of the intelligence and security agencies to disclose to the commissioner any information that he needs in order to carry out his functions.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend referred to the Security Service Act 1989 and the commissioner as models for the Bill. Why is the commissioner unwilling to declare how many complaints have been made against the security services under the terms of that Act? Although we were confident when the Act was passed, some of us are no longer so confident that he has had a great many complaints to investigate. Would it not be simpler for him to declare in his annual report how many complaints there have been?
  Mr. Hurd: That is a matter for the commissioner to work out for himself; I am not answerable for him. My experience of the Security Service Act 1989 and the Interception of Communications Act 1986 is that the commissioner's work is rigorous and important.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I shall try to help the right hon. Gentleman. I might be misinterpreting what the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, but page 2 of the Security Services Commissioner's report, dated March 1993, states the number of complaints received.
  Mr. Hurd: That is a matter for the commissioner. I think that he sometimes declared them and sometimes did not. [Interruption.] I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Commissioner for the Security Service, who is the responsibility of the Home Secretary. I am saying that it is for the commissioner to decide whether to provide particular information. Sometimes he has, and sometimes he has not, but that is a matter for him.
  Sir David Steel: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the role of the commissioner, to which he has paid tribute, will he explain how it overlaps with the later provision in the

  161
  Bill for a parliamentary committee? Is the parliamentary committee to be excluded from examining the same aspect as the commissioner—the use by Ministers of warrants?
  Mr. Hurd: The three bits of machinery have different functions, which I am trying to describe to the House. The commissioner is responsible for the exercise by the Secretary of State of the authority given to the Secretary of State under the Bill. The tribunal is responsible for investigating complaints and may ask the commissioner to follow up the investigation of such complaints. The oversight committee, with which I shall deal later, is responsible for overseeing policy administration and expenditure.
  It is an issue that hon. Members will want to debate in detail in Committee, but I do not see why there should be an overlap between the three separate functions allocated under the Bill to the three separate mechanisms, individuals or groups which the Bill proposes. I was about to deal with the second, the tribunal.
  Clause 9 establishes the tribunal to deal with complaints against the intelligence service or GCHQ. It is closely modelled on the security service tribunal, which has been working effectively since its establishment under the 1989 Act. The tribunal will, for the first time, give those complaining about the activities of SIS or GCHQ the assurance of an independent review and redress in matters that could particularly affect their privacy and prospects.
  The arrangements for the tribunal—now for the two agencies with which the Bill mainly deals and, formerly, for the Security Service—have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and, we believe, fully comply with it.
  Clause 10 provides something new, about which hon. Members have already asked me. It proposes an entirely new form of oversight of all three security and intelligence agencies—a committee of parliamentarians. As several hon. Members will remember, that idea was discussed in 1989, when there was considerable concern, especially among my hon. Friends, that further widening the circle of secrecy to an oversight committee might put national security at risk.
  Five years ago, I shared that concern. It seemed to me that either one put such a parliamentary group inside the ring of secrecy, in which case what its members could say to the world outside, including the House, would be strictly limited, or one kept them outside the ring of secrecy, in which case they would have nothing especially important to communicate—although they would be free to communicate it. In 1989, that seemed to me a dilemma which we had not resolved.
  I believe that the House will judge that, with the hindsight derived from four years' experience of the Security Service Act, and since the avowal of SIS, we have now found a way of overcoming the difficulty and reconciling those considerations. I believe that the committee proposed in the Bill will provide welcome additional and effective monitoring of the agencies, without putting national security at risk.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: For the benefit of my hon. Friends, I recall that half an hour ago the Foreign Secretary did not know whether the membership of the committee
  162
  would be subject to official secrets legislation, and that it was a nod and a wink from the civil servants in the Box that affirmed the position for the House.
  If the hon. Members who are to be members of the committee will be subject to official secrets legislation, why can they not have access to some operational matters? Why is that wrong in principle? Why can they not have access to some operational matters, in the same way as —[Interruption.]
  Some of my hon. Friends may shake their heads, but in the United States of America, several hon. Members interviewed Congressmen and bureaucrats who were members of a committee scrutinising those very matters. Many of us believe that that can be done here, if Parliament is prepared to nominate certain Members of the House to committees on the advice of the Prime Minister, as suggested. That is not a major departure from the proposal in the Bill. If the hon. Members concerned will be covered by official secrets legislation, why, in principle, can they not have some additional rights?
  Mr. Hurd: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first comment, I did not get my knowledge from the civil service Box; I do not have eyes in the back of my head. I answered by the light of my own knowledge, and I believe that I answered correctly. I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and I gave the answer that I believed to be correct, but I said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would confirm the position when he wound up.
  On the hon. Gentleman's second question, he does not seem to be living in the real world. Operational matters involving secret agencies ought to remain secret. The hon. Gentleman says that they can be fully shared with all Members of the House—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did not say that.
  Mr. Hurd: —because all Members of the House would be subject to the Official Secrets Act. That is a mechanism for shutting the stable door after the horse has gone.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not what I said.
  Mr. Hurd rose— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  Mr. Hurd: The protection provided by the Official Secrets Act is precisely like ensuring that the stable door may always be closed after the horse has gone—that is, that somebody may be prosecuted and punished after he has done the mischief. We are concerned, as is anybody who is serious about the operation of the agencies, not about punishing the person responsible for the mischief after it has occurred but about preventing the mischief before it happens.
  I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's argument is strong, because he is relying on the ability to prosecute and punish, whereas we—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's reference to the Official Secrets Act makes sense only if that is his argument.
  We are saying that we must provide against the mischief, against the revealing of secret operations, before it occurs, and that is what the Bill does.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary could tell us what criteria he will introduce for membership of the committee. If the members are not bound by the Official Secrets Act 1911, what criteria will the Secretary of State lay down for membership of that committee?
  Mr. Hurd: I was coming to precisely that point. Being under the Official Secrets Act 1911 is not in itself a sufficient protection. As it says on the face of the Bill, the committee will comprise six Members from both Houses appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. That can be—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I have given way to the hon. Member once.
  That can be argued about and will be argued about, but I believe that, when the House reflects on what we are considering—the proposal for an oversight committee for the first time—it will see that we should be anxious that that oversight committee should be effective on policy, administration and expenditure, and that it should not lead to any danger of revealing secret operations. That is the circle which we are trying to square, and what the House is after. That is what we are trying to reconcile, and what we did not succeed in reconciling in 1989.
  We are coming forward with the proposal, and before hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Workington, start rubbishing it, I hope that they will reflect on the need to reconcile those two considerations. The simple proposition on the face of the Bill is a good way in which to do what we are seeking to achieve. It is the way in which we propose to deal with the matter, and we shall defend it.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way for the last time.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hope that my question will be more friendly and less absurd than that of the hon. Member for Workington. At the moment, MI5 is responsible to the Home Secretary, and it is in that context that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has the power of scrutiny over the work of the Home Secretary and his agencies.
  In response to that, the Select Committee on Home Affairs produced a report on the scrutiny of the Security Service, to which the Government responded. The Bill appears to give the right of parliamentary scrutiny on matters of administration, expenditure and policy to the oversight committee. Does that deprive the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is, after all, a Committee of parliamentarians of all parties and not appointed by the Government, of the right to ask the head of MI5 or any part of the Security Service questions about administration, expenditure or policy?
  It should not ask about day-to-day operations. We have never sought to exercise that power, and it would have been wrong to do so. However, it seems that, if my right hon. Friend is giving a power to an oversight committee, which is not directly responsible to the House for its activities, the Government may be taking away a power of the House to control the Executive.
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If there are many more mini-speeches of that nature, some of the hon. and right hon. Members who are hoping to catch my eye will be unsuccessful.
  Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I have given way too often, but none of the interventions in my speech has been in the least beside the point. The House is being asked to tread new ground, to reconcile considerations which we all know are important, and it is finding its way.
  It is certainly not the purpose of the Bill to truncate in any way the existing responsibilities of existing Committees. I am not talking of the ambitions that Select Committees may have—that is a different matter. I am talking about their present responsibilities and it is certainly not the intention of the Bill or of clause 10 to cut in any way the existing powers and responsibilities of Select Committees.
  As I said, the oversight committee will be charged with scrutinising the administration, policy and expenditure of the security service, the SIS and GCHQ. Subject to the provisions of the Bill, the heads of the three agencies will be required to disclose to the committee the necessary information to enable it to fulfil that remit. Clearly, that is one of the most important elements in the Bill.
  For the rest, we are extending considerably—not totally —into the field of the two agencies, the SIS and GCHQ, what is already working well in the case of the Security Service. But here we are breaking new ground and putting the Security Service, as well as the two other agencies, under this new oversight committee.
  We have thought a great deal about what would be the effective mechanism in which Parliament would have confidence but which could also be privy—this is the crucial point—to the special information necessary to enable it to carry out its job. The combination of an all-party committee of parliamentarians and unprecedented access to security and intelligence information will achieve that goal.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I shall put two points to the Foreign Secretary. Although this will be a committee of parliamentarians, it certainly will not be a parliamentary committee in two important respects: first, its proceedings will not attract privilege, and, secondly, there is nothing in the Bill as far as I can see that gives the committee the power to send for persons and papers.
  Mr. Hurd: The question of privilege is not one for me, but the right hon. Gentleman's first point is fair. It is a parliamentary committee, but it is not in the same family as other Select Committees of the House. It is unique and special, and it will have a unique and special job. The Bill provides a power for the committee to examine agencies and that is its job. Therefore, I do not see that there is a mismatch between the job and the powers.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will argue that point in Committee. I am aware that he has made it before. Having looked at the matter again this morning, I do not see how there is a mismatch between the powers of the oversight committee and the job that it will be asked to do.
  I have argued that the services of the intelligence agencies are vital to the interests of our country. In a democracy, it is right that those agencies and their activities should be on a statutory basis, that there should be adequate safeguards, that there should not be unnecessary mystery, and that there should be public

  165
  confidence in the way in which the agencies work and in the arrangements for their accountability and control by Ministers.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I am going to conclude my speech.
  The Bill fulfils those requirements. It is important and logical. As I said, it comes at the end of a long series of measures—some small and some big—that we have taken, especially over the past seven or eight years to open up this field. I do not say that we have got every arrangement perfect, but there has been steady progress towards greater openness.
  I remember vividly the debates on the Official Secrets Bill—being told that every editor would quake in his shoes, that it was draconian, that few editors would not spend some time in prison once the Bill was passed, and that the threat to the freedom of the press was absolute. I remember some eloquent speeches on this theme, but nothing whatever has occurred to justify those premonitions. I hope that debates on this Bill will be somewhat more prosaic. It is the latest in a series of steps in the direction that I have mentioned.
  We drafted the Bill after careful study of the Security Service Act 1989, after a lot of consultation in Government and with the agencies, having regard to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and taking account of what happens in other countries. The Bill will provide us with an effective and important piece of legislation and will complete the task set in hand of providing a good statutory framework for all our security and intelligence agencies. I commend the Bill to right hon. and hon. Members, and invite the House to give it a Second Reading.
  4.28 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I begin by welcoming the Bill in principle. It represents an important change and makes a significant contribution to the increased scrutiny of the activities of the intelligence and security services.
  The Bill proposes changes which the Opposition believe to be long overdue. I join the Foreign Secretary in praising and paying tribute to the distinguished record of the intelligence services, and to the Secret Intelligence Service and those at the Government communications headquarters who have played such important roles over many years in the interests of defending Britain, our democracy and our interests world wide. I happily and readily put that tribute on record.
  We accept also the need for considerable secrecy in much of what those services do. Many of those who threaten our interests and security act in deeply secret ways in pursuit of their goals, which are often criminal or subversive. Those people are often involved in terrorism or the laundering of money, or are members of drug cartels, so there must be an element of secrecy and security in pursuit of them.
  Britain retains global interests and internationally shared responsibilities with our allies in the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Commonwealth and the United Nations. We must be
  166
  vigilant in trying to counteract and, better still, to prevent terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the weapons trade and drugs trafficking.
  We accept the need for modern and efficient secret intelligence organisations in a rapidly changing, but all-too-unstable, world. The issues involved include scrutiny, oversight and accountability, and constructing a framework within which they should work and be accountable.
  The background and history of the long debate about accountability are interesting. The security and intelligence services exist to protect our democracy and democratic freedoms. They exist to work in the national interest, but I, and many others in the Labour party, have long argued that they should not be outside the law.
  We believe that the services should be subject to parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, and that is why we welcome the general principles of the Bill. We welcome the proposals to enable the policy, performance, objectives and budgets of the services to be held to account. I share the view of the Foreign Secretary that no parliamentary committee of whatever nature—I will come to the detailed nature of the committee later—should be involved in operational matters.
  The obvious, if perhaps not totally apposite, comparison is with police authorities. We want police authorities to oversee the work of the police, but they do not involve themselves in operational matters. I do not believe that a committee of the House should do so in respect of the security and intelligence services. I believe that the objectives that I was talking about can best be met by the establishment of a parliamentary Select Committee, and I shall argue the case for that later.
  Before I do that, I will discuss the list of examples that the Foreign Secretary gave to the House, and which he intended to be helpful. The list was of the different circumstances in which action had been taken in our collective interest and well-being. What was interesting was not so much the list that the right hon. Gentleman gave, but the omission. He did not mention the dog which apparently did not bark in the night. He did not mention what happened when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were covertly arming the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.
  From what we have heard and seen written about the Scott inquiry, I do not believe that the responsibility for that matter can be laid at the door of the Secret Intelligence Service. The responsibility lies, of course, with Ministers. I hope, when Lord Justice Scott comes to report, that those Ministers will accept their responsibility and, if necessary, hand in their resignations at the appropriate time.
  The Foreign Secretary made a different speech today from the one that he made on 15 December 1988 when, as Home Secretary, he introduced the Second Reading of the Security Service Bill. That is why some of his right hon. and hon. Friends had rather glum faces. On that occasion, he drove them into the Lobby against exactly what he proposes that they should go into the Lobby to support tonight. He drove them into the Lobby against any idea or suggestion that a committee of parliamentarians—a scrutiny committee—could possibly work, could possibly be accepted, could possibly be in the national interest or could possibly be effective without breaching security and putting the operations of the Security Service at risk. His speech is set out in the Official Report at great length.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech was surpassed only by the usual completely over-the-top speech of his right

  167
  hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Education, then the Minister of State, Home Office. The then Minister of State dismissed all rational argument and debate in sweeping, ridiculous phrases, implying that the creation of such a committee would never happen. Ministers all seem to have had a blinding conversion in the recent past.
  Only in 1992, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Home Secretary, said in evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he did not think that policy and operational matters could be distinguished. Therefore, of course, he implied that no scrutiny committee could ever be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. What a change today.
  In his speech in 1988, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "In those circumstances, which are borne in upon us day by day, it is not possible to distinguish, as some have genuinely sought to do, between policy and operations, overall resources and how they are spent, or theory and practice. Those distinctions can be made on paper and can be beguiling, but they do not work in practice."—[Official Report, 15 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 1110.]
  Those were the right hon. Gentleman's very words. I should think that, as well as Opposition Members, some of his right hon. and hon. Friends and people outside the House may want to know why the Foreign Secretary has so totally changed his mind; why he is now standing on his head. We welcome his conversion, but his speech today was a very different performance in tone and content from that speech in 1988.
  There are many more quotations with which I could pursue the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I see that the right hon. Gentleman is rising to the first bit of bait. Perhaps I will save the rest for later.
  Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I can help to shorten the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I dealt with the point in my speech. It is perfectly true that in 1988 I held and argued those views. But since then, over the past year or so, I have looked to see whether we could find ways in which we could form an oversight committee. I have done so because the views of the agencies have changed and the kind of work that they do has changed. I believe that we have now found a way in which we can reconcile those considerations.
  The arguments remain exactly the same as when we argued the matter through in 1988. Then, the Government did not feel that there was an answer that reconciled the different needs. We now feel that there is one. Life has moved on. Our thinking has moved on. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that. I hope that he will welcome the rest of the Bill.
  Dr. Cunningham: We shall come to the rest of the Bill in a moment. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's conversion. I probably welcome it a great deal more than some of his right hon. and hon. Friends sitting on the Benches behind him will do.
  Mr. Winnick: I am sorry for interrupting my right hon. Friend's speech. Does he accept that when we debated the measure in 1988, Labour Members raised time and again the abuses that had occurred in the security services? While we recognised the work being done both at home and abroad, we brought to the attention of the House the Wright affair and the way in which my hon. Friend the
  168
  Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and Patricia Hewitt had been targeted by the security services because they held senior posts at the time in the National Council for Civil Liberties. There were many other examples of tittle-tattle about the private lives of those involved in the leadership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That had nothing to do with security. It was a misuse and abuse of our democratic procedures by people involved in the security services who were out of control. That was why we wanted parliamentary accountability.
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those and many other instances led us a long time ago to the conclusion that it was not only practicable but essential to have some parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the security and intelligence services.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
  Mr. Whitney: On this point.
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not intend to stray from the point, so the hon. Gentleman should contain himself for a moment. Having read remarks made by him in 1988, I shall be very interested to see how he votes tonight. We know well that he was no supporter of the idea of a scrutiny committee.
  The Times of today tells us—I suppose that it can be only an estimate as we are not allowed to know all the facts —that these activities cost the taxpayer about £900 million a year. That may be a gross exaggeration. If the Foreign Secretary is about to leap to the Dispatch Box again and tell us so, I hope that he will give us an accurate and comprehensive figure.
  Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister has given the figure. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be in full possession of the facts.
  Dr. Cunningham: I, too, have some published figures. They are contained in the report that the research division of the House of Commons Library produced for this debate. The reality is that other people believe the amounts to be very different from those that are given. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to say which information is accurate. He says that the Prime Minister has given the figure. Indeed, during the past few years, the Prime Minister has given the House many answers that turned out not to be valid in all circumstances.
  Mr. Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to his party's views about the need for a parliamentary committee of oversight. The Labour party adopted these views after it lost power. During its period of office, successive Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Home Secretaries held quite contrary views. Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on their conversion?
  Dr. Cunningham: I happily agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that the people to whom he has referred were wrong, and if they have not changed their minds they are still wrong. I have held my views about the powers of Parliament ever since I became a Member of the House. The powers of the House of Commons are pathetically inadequate in many respects. This is just one classic example. I dare say, without checking the record or straying too far from order, that the hon. Gentleman is one

  169
  of those who have consistently voted against strengthened powers for Parliament and against increased support for Members to enable them to do their job more adequately.
  Mr. Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way again. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman flatters himself.
  The decision to bring the Secret Intelligence Service into the daylight was welcome, but since everyone in London could see the building of the wonderful new headquarters just down the river from here it was hardly credible to maintain the fiction that the organisation did not exist. I wonder how many of us will be invited to the house-warming party.
  Another interesting matter about which we need to know is the exact cost to the public purse of the building at Vauxhall cross and of the refurbishment of Thames House South and whether the public are getting value for money. For these reasons, too, I firmly believe that we should have such a committee. In any event, the public would think that we were lacking in the discharge of our responsibility to them if we were to allow sums of this magnitude to be spent without asking some very searching questions.
  Turning to some details of the Bill, as did the Foreign Secretary, I shall start with clause 7 as, broadly, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the earlier provisions. Clause 7 is interesting. It gives the people involved complete and very wide-ranging immunity. Apparently, they did not have such immunity previously. Perhaps the Minister of State, when he winds up, will comment on that matter.
  From our researches, it seems that clause 7 may be necessary for the purpose of taking into account the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. I do not know whether that is true—it is just a bit of surmise and detective work on my own part—but it would be very interesting to know why we have a long, complex and very wide-ranging clause providing these immunities if, for all these years, the members of the Secret Intelligence Service have been able to operate quite happily overseas without them. Or have those people been operating overseas without safeguards from potential prosecution in this country? Whatever the reasons, I hope that the Minister of State will tell us a little more about the provisions of clause 7 and why it is so necessary.
  Clause 8 says:
  "The Commissioner shall make an annual report … to the Prime Minister"
  and:
  "The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Commissioner under subsection (5) … together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (7)".
  I accept that the commissioner should report to the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister should have some right of veto. This is a matter for the commissioner to decide. As I said in an intervention, the commissioner— a post provided for under the Security Service Act 1989—sets out on page 2 of his report the number of complaints received and investigated in 1992 and the number received in 1991 but investigated in 1992. So I am not clear about the purpose of the intervention of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason).
  170
  What concerns people is not that matter or the fact that the numbers are not given—they are given—but what the commissioner has to say, later in page 2, about complaints. Incidentally, none of the complaints is upheld. Commenting on the fact that 40 complaints were referred to him, the commissioner says:
  "In no case have I made a determination on the basis that a warrant has been issued in relation to the complainant's property. This fact may lead some to speculate that members of the service are carrying out operations involving unlawful interference with property, such as installing eavesdropping devices, without the authorisation of a warrant issued under the act. Indeed, from time to time I am asked whether I am satisfied that such operations are not being carried out. Although I cannot answer the question categorically, because it is not my function to review the operations of the service, and, in the nature of things, such operations, if they existed, would be concealed".
  That is what concerns the public. We need to be able to call people to account, not so that we can ask about the nature of operations but to satisfy ourselves, on the basis of inquiries by the tribunal and the commissioner and by a committee, that the public have as much assurance as it is possible to give that these organisations are acting within the law and that there is proper supervision of warrants. I am not against the warrants—it would be absurd to take that view—but I believe that we need more safeguards.
  Mr. Allason: When the 1989 Act was passed, the commissioner was given very wide powers, and some of us believed that he would have power to investigate and report on complaints. In subsequent reports, there was no reference to the number of complaints. Now there is such reference, but only as a result of pressure. More to the point, the commissioner declined to investigate any complaint relating to any episode that had been initiated before 10 December 1989. So while many complaints were made, they were all ruled out of order.
  Dr. Cunningham: The obvious response to that intervention is that presumably the commissioner did not have the statutory powers to investigate before then.
  Clause 10 illustrates what lies at the heart of some of the differences between the two sides of the House over this legislation. That clause describes the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which will not be a Select Committee or a parliamentary committee, but will be made up of Members of Parliament. It will not, therefore, be governed by the normal rules that apply to Select Committees. Apparently, the issue of privilege will not apply, although the application of the Official Secrets Act 1989 might circumvent that problem.
  What sort of committee will it be? It will not be a Select Committee or a committee of privy councillors—it will be all the better for that as neither I nor the Home Affairs Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), am persuaded that every member of such a committee should be a privy councillor.
  I am also worried about the size of the committee. Six members are proposed, with a quorum of three. In the circumstances, it may be difficult for it to achieve that quorum, especially since at least one member of the Lords and one Member of the Commons must be present.
  We have considerable misgivings about the nature and size of the committee. It should be a Select Committee and it should be larger. We can discuss that matter in the Standing Committee, where my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will be leading for the

  171
  Opposition. We should be thinking of a membership of the order of nine members and then a quorum could be more readily achieved, as could agreement between the parties involved about who should be a member.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I take my right hon. Friend back to my intervention during the Foreign Secretary's speech. If the committee is neither parliamentary nor a Select Committee, but almost a quasi-departmental committee with Members of Parliament nominated to it by the Prime Minister, and if its members are subject to the Official Secrets Act—as was said in the House—why, in principle, should it not be able to ask questions about operational matters? I could understand my right hon. Friend's reservations if the committee were to be a Select Committee, but as it will be a quasi-departmental committee with Members of Parliament on it, why can it not ask questions on issues about which those Members are concerned? They will not be reporting back to Parliament.
  Dr. Cunningham: As always, I give my hon. Friend full marks for persistence. Whatever the status of the committee, it should not be able to interfere in operational matters. I made that clear at the outset and I am not persuaded to change my mind.
  I am also concerned that the committee will apparently not have the power to call witnesses and commission papers to be brought before it. That is another weakness for a committee that is seriously expected to deal with scrutiny or oversight. Those are all serious matters and they dramatically weaken the proposal at the heart of this legislation.
  Furthermore, it is proposed that the committee should not report to Parliament but to the Prime Minister. I do not regard that as parliamentary scrutiny or oversight, because the Prime Minister has the right to veto sections of its report—I call it prime ministerial oversight and scrutiny.
  If we are to have an effective parliamentary watchdog to oversee such matters and to probe and scrutinise, it should report to Parliament. It cannot legitimately be called a parliamentary committee unless it does so. That is another major difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government over the details of the legislation.
  Of course, it is okay for commissioners to report to the Prime Minister—that is what they are appointed for—but a parliamentary committee should report and be answerable to the House for the conduct of its affairs.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the description of the committee in the Bill, where it states that it will examine "expenditure, administration and policy", gives it a remarkably wide brief, given that is within the wall of secrecy?
  Dr. Cunningham: There would be little point in having a committee that was not within what the Foreign Secretary termed the wall of secrecy—
  Mr. Michael Mates: Circle.
  Dr. Cunningham: Okay, whether it is a circle or a wall, there would be no point in having the committee unless it was able to penetrate whatever geometric figure that the Foreign Secretary cares to use to describe the boundaries of
  172
  the activities of the security and intelligence services. That is something else which we need to redress during the passage of this legislation—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am in danger of taking up too much time, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the committee will look into the security and intelligence services and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham. As I failed, could he try to tickle out from the Foreign Secretary the fact that the commissioner for GCHQ and for the intelligence services will be the same person as the commissioner for the security services? Similarly, membership of the tribunal for GCHQ and the intelligence services will be the same as that for the security services.
  Dr. Cunningham: I had come to the conclusion that that was the case and that the same person and organisations would deal with both, but I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm or deny that when he replies to the debate.
  I have another question on schedule 3 to the Bill which states in paragraph 3(1)(b)(ii) that information sought may be denied
  "because the Secretary of State has determined that it should not he disclosed."
  That is another sweeping power. The committee will not have the right to certain documents and memorandums because the Secretary of State has the power to say no. That is another great weakness in the powers of the committee that the House is being asked to establish.
  I must press on to other aspects of the proposals and to the omission in this or any other Government decision of any redress for people employed at GCHQ. To the Government's continuing shame, GCHQ employees are denied the right to join a trade union of their choice. That decade-long denial of a basic freedom and democratic right is deplorable. It is clear that the mulish obstinacy of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary is to blame for the failure to end the stalemate that has existed for so long. Trade unions have met all the requirements that the Government have placed on them following their discussions with Sir Robin Butler—discussions established willingly after a suggestion by the Prime Minister, I believe.
  Britain has been condemned and will, no doubt, be condemned again by the International Labour Organisation, which said that banning unions at GCHQ contravened article 87 and is a unique occurrence in western democracies. No other country and Government have taken such action and it does not bear even the simplest scrutiny.
  The Government have given up the nonsense about threats to our security and betrayal. We know from our history that most betrayals of this country were not perpetrated by trade union members. That was always not only nonsense, but an insulting piece of nonsense. The record clearly shows from where and by whom our country has been sadly betrayed. Apparently, the Government now argue that if people were allowed to belong to a trade union of their choice, there would be a "conflict of loyalty". I cannot for the life of me see how that argument can stand the simplest test.

  173
  Why is it that the permanent secretaries of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the permanent secretaries in the Ministry of Defence, the permanent secretaries in the Home Office—who are members of the First Division Association, an organisation affiliated to the Trades Union Congress—do not have that conflict of loyalty? Why are they trusted to handle highly secret and sensitive material? Much lower ranking employees and officers at GCHQ, however, apparently pose some threat to our national security. Of course, it is absurd. A former Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott, blew all the arguments about operational matters at GCHQ out of the water when he said that at no time had the efficiency of GCHQ ever been diminished as a result of trade union activities. It is a disgrace that that state of affairs continues.
  In a parliamentary answer, I was pleased to be told by the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that the Government
  "have no plans to withdraw from the International Labour Organisation."—[Official Report, 15 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 715.]
  It is good news because there have been suggestions to the contrary—that the Government might avoid the international humiliation that is coming their way. Even though it may be difficult, we shall continue to pursue the matter to the end of the passage of the legislation and beyond. I reiterate unequivocally the determination of a Labour Government to restore the basic democratic right to people at GCHQ.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a false argument. Between 1979 and 1981, 10,000 staff days were lost at GCHQ through industrial action. The unions are aware that disruption occurred. When the Government withdrew union rights in 1984, they brought GCHQ in line with the other security and intelligence agencies. There is no accusation of disloyalty or betrayal; there was simply a desire to prevent the disruption at GCHQ such as had occurred in preceding years.
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not know whether we take what the right hon. Gentleman said as a retraction of the accusations of disloyalty, but such accusations and threats to our security were thick on the ground. Trade unions were described as the enemy within by the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, so it is no good his trying to wipe the slate clean and pretend that the accusations were not levelled. They were levelled and formed the original basis of the Government's argument. I have made clear the position of my party on the issue. I have no doubt that the International Labour Organisation will make its position clear. The right hon. Gentleman can squirm as much as he likes, but he knows that he and his colleagues are denying people a basic human right, which they are entitled to have and which we shall restore.
  Reading the speeches of Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead during consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords, I found confirmation that things have not always been well within the security services. We know that there have been similar problems in the Secret Intelligence Service in years gone by. The Scott inquiry should have some interesting and important things to say about more recent events. Now, I for one would like to know what the Secret Intelligence Service knows about the
  174
  scandal surrounding the financing of the Pergau dam in Malaysia, a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have played a foolish, if not ignominious, role.
  History tells us that we should be vigilant about our intelligence and security services because there is, and always will be, a conflict between liberty and security. The latter is pursued for the collective good, but we must be vigilant to ensure that our essential liberties are not eroded in the necessary pursuit of intelligence and security. The challenge for us all is to get the balance right. The Bill's provisions, particularly those in clause 10, do not meet that challenge.
  The Bill is welcome because it is another step towards ending the deeply conservative, secretive culture of government in our country. I welcome it because it gives Parliament more, although not sufficient, powers to scrutinise what is done at taxpayers' expense and in the national interest. It is interesting that, in 1988, the Government—because the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Home Secretary, recognised that constitutional issues were involved in security services legislation—moved that the legislation should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. They should do so again today. If they do not, I shall.
  The Bill represents a fundamental change of mind by the Government and the Secretary of State in particular. In that sense, it is victory for the arguments that we have advanced over the years and we shall go on advancing those detailed arguments in Committee.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) welcomed the Bill in principle, but the central point of his attack on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was extraordinarily badly judged. Near the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman showed that he had studied the House of Lords Hansard, which is littered with former Foreign Secretaries and Home Secretaries of a Labour persuasion saying why they were in favour of the proposals. My right hon. Friend is marked out as the only person who, in office, has taken that view and determined to do something about it. It is a matter for congratulation that he has taken responsibility and not used the ease of life on the Back Benches to reflect on what he might have done.
  Today, there was a seizure of Semtex in Accrington —I do not think that it was identified by a passing panda patrol car. Undoubtedly, the intelligence services had a hand in that. Their work is vital in the fight against terrorism in these islands, in Europe and throughout the world. We do not need reminding today that that work has never been more important. The threats that we face now are of a complexity, variety and degree of danger and seriousness that mean that the importance of the intelligence services in their different roles has never been greater. Those roles will not remain the same; they will have to change in terms of emphasis and the relative roles of the Security Service, GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the risk of nuclear proliferation—not through Governments, but through private enterprise. We know that there are people who have cash and there are customers for such materials. The dissolution of the old Soviet Union and the existing

  175
  massive arsenal produce a great risk of the material dissipating into unsuitable hands. Biological and chemical warfare presents challenges of a different, but incredibly, dangerous sort to society. The threat of blackmail from different groups is real. My right hon. Friend also referred to crime and drugs.
  Drawing on my experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, subsequently, for Defence, I recognise the debt that we owe to the Security and Intelligence Services. Indeed, I recognise the debt that many people owe, but do not know that they owe. Sir Percy Cradock said that one of the roles of the security services is to prevent things from happening that might otherwise cause great stress and suffering. Many of those can never be discussed, but let no one, by virtue of that silence, suggest that the danger does not exist.
  Characteristically, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did the House a great service in illustrating with examples, in a way that has never been done in the House before, the sort of work recently done by the security services for the protection of life and the prevention of outrage.
  The security services serve our country, but are also responsible to it. The issue facing us is how to ensure that they can do their work, in which secrecy is vital, without allowing them total freedom, unaccountability or independence of action. They must be given that essential element of secrecy in their work yet sufficient accountability and structure of control that our country can have confidence that they are operating at all times in the national interest, in the fullest sense of that phrase.
  By virtue of the secrecy under which they operate, they have a unique opportunity to abuse their power and authority. But they also have a unique opportunity to be abused by people who can make all sorts of allegations against them. By their nature, those can never be challenged and may never see the light of day.
  It is therefore in everyone's interest that we have a structure that allows the best possible control, recognising the special circumstances in which the security services work. As my right hon. Friend said, that is the dilemma faced by other countries. The Library has done us a service in producing an analysis of other countries' attempts to work in that area. Interestingly, they are all slightly different and have sought to address the problem recognising their different circumstances.
  It is essential to strike the right balance of secrecy. In the offices that I held, I discovered that the knowledge about operations and the desire to know a little more about what is going on is extremely seductive. Often, and quite rightly, Ministers have no idea about operations that are taking place. In many circumstances, it is essential that the need-to-know principle be operated as tightly as possible, not because people are trying to do things that they should not do, but because people's lives are often at risk in those operations.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is no longer in the Chamber. In an intervention he suggested that a member of our security services should be required to undertake an operation advised on by the hon. Member in some wider committee role. I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) quickly made it clear that he was not in favour of a committee intruding into operational matters. Obviously, that would not be realistic.
  176
  It is essential that we give the confidence that secrecy will be protected, not just to those who serve at present, whose lives as we stand here now are at risk in various ways, but in the interests of future recruitment to the service. It is alleged that, when the United States Congress was moving down a route that some people in the Central Intelligence Agency feared was too expansionist, our intelligence services recruited a number of their people who felt that their lives and security could be at risk if the freedom of information legislation removed the protection that secrecy gave them.
  That issue is important if we are to have effective intelligence services in the future. This is a competition. Some people can make effective agents and they are known in other countries. We know that some of them sell their services, but they will be concerned to know that if they commit their lives to a service in that way, it is a service with an employer they can trust and who will protect their secrecy and their lives for the service that they give. That is a key issue in the effectiveness of our security services.
  Today, we are discussing how our country can feel confident that the security services that we fund, which provide our country's defence and protect its national interests, operate in a proper and acceptable way. No matter what the calibre and integrity of the Ministers responsible or the directors whom the Secretary of State appoints, to satisfy public confidence there needs to be a separate assessment and an ability to assess. Although it is difficult to get the balance right, the proposals of the commissioner, the tribunal and the committee are a sensible way to start. They may develop, but I believe that the balance is right to start this new development.
  The key elements in the committee's obligations are expenditure and administration policy. The right hon. Member for Copeland referred to the alleged cost. One article said that it was not Her Majesty's Secret Service but "Her Majesty's expensive service", and that is true. I shall break one element of secrecy about my past responsibilities. My right hon. Friend may remember the most ludicrous meeting that I have ever attended—the public expenditure survey round. I was sitting with a poor benighted Chief Secretary, faced by the great Secretaries of State, the permanent secretaries and the directors general of the various agencies arguing about correct expenditure levels for our country's security and intelligence services. It is extremely important that that be conducted in a more careful and continuous way.
  We need to consider the balance to be struck between confidence in the cost—the service is expensive—and confidence in the quality of the administration and control. The right hon. Member for Copeland referred to examples of certain elements of the service. Whether those concerned factional disputes or unclear authority, clearly the administration and organisation were inadequate. The public have a right to feel that they are adequate and that the policies pursued are in our national interest.
  A number of amendments were moved in another place about whether it was a significant economic issue or of significant national interest. The right hon. Member for Copeland will no doubt move such amendments, but I do not know whether they need to be framed in legislation. Nobody could argue that those points are not valid, but it is a question of judgment. We need an external assessment before we can be confident that those judgments are being correctly made.
  Mr Rogers: In relation to important issues for the economic well-being of the country, the Foreign Secretary in another guise said that the Bill applied to such matters as key commodities, yet during discussion of the Bill in another place the Lord Chancellor said that there were also other considerations. Perhaps from his great and vast experience, the right hon. Gentleman could give us some idea of what he considers would effect the economic well-being of the country.
  Mr. King: It has been specifically determined by Congress and the United States Administration, which directed the United States intelligence agencies to combat industrial espionage against United States technology. Different economic considerations may be regarded as key areas of importance to our national economic situation.
  The importance of establishing confidence in the intelligence services has another aspect. A feature of terrorism that I know well from my own experience is that terrorists have a twin-track ambition. The first is, by the nature of their activities, to terrorise, to intimidate and to compel. At the same time, they actively try to undermine the institutions of our free society that defend us and to seek to frustrate them. It is no coincidence that at a time of heightened terrorism, various allegations are made not just against the police and the system of law and justice, but against the intelligence services. It is part of the campaign that terrorists wage to undermine the institutions that we value to protect our way of life and our democratic society.
  It is no good simply complaining that it must be an unfair attack on the intelligence services; we need to take the necessary steps. My right hon. Friend is showing great intelligence in recognising in his proposals the need to respond to that and to bolster the defences of democracy. His proposals are not just in the interests of Parliament or greater public accountability, but in the interests of the services themselves, so that they can command greater public respect and confidence and thereby be more resistant to the charges, challenges and allegations that may be made against them.
  The Bill will put a heavy responsibility on members of both Houses. It will be difficult for the Committee Members, within or outside the wall of secrecy, to master the responsibilities that the Bill lays upon them, but I believe that it is the right structure.
  I query only one small point. In another place, it was suggested by the Lord Chancellor that the committee might include one member of another House and that it might not be an equal division of three and three. The Bill requires a quorum which must include one member of the House of Lords, and that if he is not there the committee will not be able to meet. It is a small technical point, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand.
  The Bill refers to the laying of an annual report. It requires that the committee
  "shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to the discharge of their functions."
  It then states:
  "The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report".
  It does not say the Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament any other report that the committee may make at any time. I appreciate that the point may be raised in Committee, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with it today.
  178
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, the Bill marks a further step in the progress that he has made, and for which he deserves great credit, away from the lunacy of the unavowed services with which we have lived for so long. I suspect that the answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Copeland about whether people have committed unauthorised acts overseas is that they did not have to be authorised because they were not avowed, and if they did not exist they could not have been authorised to do things. That is now ready to be changed and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on a measure that is in the interests of our country and the intelligence services.
  5.24 pm
  Dr. John Gilbert: I begin by endorsing what has been said by both Front-Bench spokesmen about the patriotism, courage, devotion and skill of members of the security services. It comes as no surprise that the leaders of those services welcome the Bill.
  Let me say straight away that I welcome the Bill. I am prepared to congratulate the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) put his finger on it accurately when he said that previous Prime Ministers of all political persuasions have been extraordinarily timid about releasing control of the security and intelligence services, even to selected and supposedly perfectly reliable Members of the House—not that I am suggesting that there are any unreliable Members.
  I propose for the purposes of today's debate to confine my remarks to clause 10 and schedule 3, which relate to the establishment of the committee. Having congratulated the Prime Minister on his forward step, I think that he is being far more timid than necessary.
  The Foreign Secretary has had to defend the proposition that the committee should not be a Select Committee of the House. I have yet to hear any reason at all why it should not be a Select Committee.
  Every single one of the various elements in setting up a committee—its size, the people to be nominated to it, its powers and the publication of the report—can be totally protected by the Prime Minister. His interests and the interests of the Government and the security services need be at risk in no way, as I shall seek to show, by giving the committee the powers of a Select Committee.
  For example, it would not have to rely on the Committee of Selection for its size or membership; that can be determined by prime ministerial resolution. It would not have to go through the Committee of Selection, the independence of which some hon. Members on both sides of the House have been sceptical about from time to time with respect to the influence of the Whips. I am glad that my Chief Whip is not here to hear me say that.
  Everyone knows that the membership of the committee will be decided by the Prime Minister, and that nobody will get on the committee without his approval having to be enshrined in primary legislation. Nothing is laid down in the Standing Orders of the House about the size of a Select Committee; that can be determined by prime ministerial resolution.
  The Government cannot be sensitive about the publication of the report, because clearly sidelining would apply. No committee would produce a report containing

  179
  sensitive passages that the Government say should not be published. I consider that absolutely inconceivable, and I pray in aid my experience on Defence Committees.
  The only thing about which the Government may be sensitive in giving the committee the powers of a Select Committee is the timing of a report. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) may have come close to the nub a few moments ago, when he pointed out that the Bill provides for the Prime Minister to publish, suitably excised of course, the committee's annual report, but makes no provision whatever for requiring him to publish any interim reports.
  The committee has a remedy in its own hands; it can tack on to its report anything that was in the interim reports, if it so decides. I cannot imagine that only the timing is inhibiting the Government from giving the committee the powers of a Select Committee. I should like to know what other reason there is.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: One point that will be different from the normal conventions of a Select Committee—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say whether this would be brought within his proposed changes to procedure—is that, in effect, the Prime Minister can replace a member of the committee.
  Dr. Gilbert: I have observed that point, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but those things could also be done by resolution of the House or prime ministerial motion at any time—for example, by saying that X shall no longer be a member, and that Y shall be appointed in his or her place.
  I shall make a few brief Committee-type points on clause 10 and schedule 3. I raised earlier the question of privilege. I do not consider that an unimportant matter, unless it is conceived that the only witnesses that the committee will interview will be the heads of the security services.
  I do not know whether that is at the back of the Government's mind, but if so, clearly, questions of privilege would be otiose. In any case, the Prime Minister will have control over the excising from the report of any matters that he considers to be sensitive, and therefore anything that he would consider to be a breach of privilege and defamatory.
  It escapes me why the committee's proceedings should not be covered by privilege. That relates to witnesses other than official witnesses whose evidence might be published in the report. It seems inconceivable that the committee will merely report to the Prime Minister a set of conclusions. Presumably when it sends its report to the Prime Minister, it will give the reasons and the evidence that lie beneath those conclusions. That is why one needs, in my judgment, the protection of privilege if one is to interview any witnesses other than the heads of the security services.
  The other question that concerns me is the powers of this committee of parliamentarians. There is nothing in the Bill to give the committee the power to send for persons and papers. That is a fundamental power of any parliamentary committee. If the committee is not to have that power, is that because it is conceived that the only people from whom the committee will take evidence are the heads of the security and intelligence services and
  180
  GCHQ? I cannot imagine that that is the case, because I have reason to believe that there will be provision in the Bill for the committee to travel.
  Obviously, if one is to inquire into the efficiency of those services, one must have discussions with official representatives of the services abroad, with whom they will have co-operated, unless one is to take everything on face value—and only a pretty spineless committee would do that. One will also need to discuss with members of other oversight committees in other countries. Therefore, it seems essential that, if the committee is to go outside the restricted range of the heads of the two services and GCHQ, it must have powers to send for persons and papers.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made an important point about the quorum. I, too, have made that point elsewhere before now, and I hope that that matter will be taken care of in Committee.
  I shall now deal with a couple of other important points that are not touched on in the Bill. The first is access. In another place, the Lord Chancellor said that the committee would have access to the Prime Minister at all times. It is in the Bill that it will be able to send reports to the Prime Minister at any time that it considers suitable. I hope that the access is intended to go wider than that.
  From the language that the Lord Chancellor used, I take it that the right of immediate access to the Prime Minister is similar to the right of access that the chiefs of staff have to the Prime Minister on matters that they consider necessary and which are urgently to be brought to his attention. I should be grateful if we could have confirmation that that is the Government's view, and their interpretation of what the Lord Chancellor said.
  Secondly, I think it extremely important that the committee has access to the Comptroller and Auditor General, because no Committee in the House has anything like the number of staff at its disposal that the CAG has. He already has access to the operations of the services. Without that access specifically awarded to the committee, its powers will be considerably diminished.
  On membership of the committee, like my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I congratulate the Government on not confining membership to Privy Councillors. There is an incredible mystique in this place about Privy Councillors. Personally, I would not trust some of them within miles of the committee—I will not name them, but they are to be found on both sides of the House.
  An awful lot of thoroughly respectable and reliable hon. Members are not Privy Councillors, and I would welcome seeing them on the committee. When one sees how cavalier some Privy Councillors are with their Privy Councillor's oath—they shall be nameless, but there are those who rush out to commit their Cabinet memories to their publishers —it is extraordinary that they were ever of a mind to take the oath in the first place.
  Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend makes the point that the committee is not confined to Privy Councillors, although the Bill does not say that. Does he agree that it is almost certain that the majority of the six will be former Cabinet Ministers, who will almost certainly be Privy Councillors? I for one will be extremely surprised if more than one member is not a Privy Councillor. Although that is not in the Bill, for obvious reasons, I do not share my right hon. Friend's optimism.
  Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged as always to the wisdom coming from my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour who is the Member for Walsall, North. If he has recommendations to make to the Prime Minister about the membership of the committee, no doubt he will make them.
  One piece of ambiguity that arose today was from what the Foreign Secretary said compared to what the Lord Chancellor said. I should be grateful for clarification. I can assure the House that I am not quoting the Lord Chancellor out of context, but he said:
  "the committee will have access to operational information but only in so far as that does not transgress the criteria for sensitivity and the other criteria for withholding information, which are specified".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1414.]
  That seems to mean that there will be a whole lot of areas in which the committee will have access to operation information.
  In other words, the words of the Lord Chancellor, which are repeated elsewhere in his intervention, seem unambiguous. But schedule 3(4) says:
  "The following information is sensitive information for the purposes of paragraph 3 above—
  (b) information about particular operations which have been, are being or are proposed to be undertaken in pursuance of any of the functions of those bodies".
  That seems to be a pretty blanket elimination of any operational information whatever.
  On the face of it, the Lord Chancellor's assurance in the other place is worthless, unless the Government are proposing at least to remove paragraph 4(b) from schedule 3. I quite understand paragraph 4(a), which relates to the ability to identify individual members of the service or their operational methods. When the Minister is winding up, I should be grateful if he could shed some light on that.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: That may be qualified by schedule 3(1)(b)(i), which refers to information that, as well as being sensitive,
  "in his opinion"—
  that is, the opinion of the director of GCHQ or that of the director-general of the security service—
  "should not be made available under paragraph (a)".
  Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance. However, I had already read that passage in conjunction with the paragraph to which I referred, and I should like to hear the Minister's interpretation rather than the hon. Gentleman's.
  I hope that we shall be given an assurance about the sidelining of the report. I trust that the Government envisage a natural discussion between the Committee and the Prime Minister's officials—not him personally, of course—about how much of the report will be published.
  I have a few years' experience, having been a member of the Defence Select Committee and, before that, a member of the defence and external affairs sub-committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure. When we produced a report, we would produce it in toto—with no sidelining—and then send it to the officials in the executive branch to find out what they thought.
  A perfectly proper process of negotiation and debate would follow. We would say, "For heaven's sake, you need not take this bit out; what on earth is secret about it?", and they would say, "You don't understand: it relates to this and that." A trading process would then occur. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) has been a distinguished member of the Defence Select Committee
  182
  for many years, and took part in many such negotiations; he will confirm what I have said. I hope that the Government will make the same procedure available to the oversight committee.
  I am disappointed that the Government have not felt able to trust hon. Members more. As well as spending several years on the Committees that I mentioned during the 1974–79 Parliament, I spent eight years on the Defence Select Committee after 1979; in the intervening time, I spent nearly three years at the Ministry of Defence.
  In all that time, I was not aware of a single leak of classified information from a single one of those Committees; all the leaks of official information came from the Ministry itself. That must be the experience of anyone who has been a Defence Minister. I challenge any hon. Member to quarrel with my account of events—and I cannot believe that much has changed since then.
  I hope that the Government will show a little more confidence in the House, and give the committee's members more power and authority. They will not lose any serious powers of control. I assure the Government that their fears are entirely unnecessary; but, having said that, let me add that I hope the House will give the Bill a fair wind.
  5.42 pm
  Sir Archibald Hamilton: I welcome the Bill. I am pretty sure that I would not have done so 10 years ago, but I believe that the international security position has changed dramatically since then. I feel that we can now risk greater openness in regard to the operations of our intelligence services, for there is no doubt that a degree of risk is involved in appointing any kind of parliamentary committee to oversee their activities.
  Despite the disintegration of the Soviet threat, other threats are emerging—not the least being terrorism, the expansion of the drug trade and the failure of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We must face up to that failure. As a Minister, I had to say that the treaty was working very well, but I do not really believe that; I believe that it has been a failure in general. Alarmingly, it does not seem to be stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the world: many nations are acquiring a nuclear capability.
  I am also concerned to note that, despite the efforts of our intelligence services, we do not seem to know the details of other countries' nuclear weapon-developing capabilities. At the beginning of the Gulf war, an assessment suggested that Iraq was still 10 years away from nuclear capability; after the war, when we were able to probe deeply into the whole operation, we found that the country was within 12 months of being able to produce nuclear weapons. That is very alarming, and suggests that our assessments of other countries may be proved inaccurate as well: they may be much nearer to nuclear capability than we think.
  It must be right to put security and intelligence service employees on to a statutory basis. I am very pleased that they feel comfortable with the Bill, which will make their duties much clearer and less equivocal. Let me echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr.King) in stressing the risks and threats involved in the work of many of those employees: some risk their lives for little return, material or otherwise. We owe them a great debt. It is easy to be harshly critical of intelligence service workers, and to believe any malicious rumours that may be circulating;

  183
  they are in an extremely difficult position, in that they cannot defend themselves publicly. The Bill, to some extent, recognises the debt that we owe them.
  It is important that GCHQ is being brought under the statutory umbrella. Given the technical nature of its operations and its relatively small interface with the public, I doubt whether it will produce many problems. I suspect that the secret intelligence services are in a rather different category, in that there will always be people who feel that they are being victimised in one way or another by those services. There is bound to be a constant stream of complaints, imaginary or otherwise. That problem must be dealt with, but I think that the Bill does so to some extent.
  It is excellent that we are putting the whole business of the Foreign Secretary's issue of warrants on to a statutory basis, and that his authorisation of intelligence operations is being put on a more sensible footing. It must be right to appoint a commissioner—much along the lines proposed in the Security Service Act 1989—to examine the question of warrants and authorisations, and to allow the tribunal to investigate complaints. I feel strongly that the investigation of complaints should be the task of the tribunal. It has some powers to deal with such matters, but not enough, and it is sensible to place the onus there. I should be concerned if it were shifted to a parliamentary committee which is not in the position—or should not put itself into a position—of having to handle such matters.
  It has already been pointed out that the tribunal has not the power to compel witnesses to attend, or to call for papers. Perhaps the Ministers will consider giving it extra powers; we should feel very much more comfortable if it had them.
  I come now to the question of the committee of parliamentarians and the great debate as to whether its members should be Privy Councillors. It will obviously be of great benefit to keep the committee relatively small. The more members the committee has, the more likely it is that leaks or mistakes will be made by Members of Parliament —who, let us face it, are not renowned for their discretion. Briefing the press seems to occupy most of the daylight hours of many of my colleagues. It will be quite a cultural change for them to become involved in any part of the Government's activities in which people are not briefing the press day and night. The smaller the committee is, therefore, the more likely it is to be secure. There seems to be an almost direct relationship between the size of a committee and the likelihood that it will operate in a reasonably secure way.
  The establishment of the committee will be a useful step towards parliamentary scrutiny and will, to some extent, meet the criticisms of people who are worried that the security services have been operating with no parliamentary oversight.
  The remit of the committee seems to be very broad. I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater in saying that it is important that the committee operates on a need-to-know basis. I do not think that that extends to detailed operational matters. It would be a great onus on the members of the committee if they knew about detailed operational matters because if, by some misfortune, they were to let any of that information slip it could result in agents being betrayed and killed. That is not a responsibility which I would want.
  I think back to the time of the Gulf war. If my right hon. Friend and I had made one small mistake in the information that we gave, we could have put men's lives in
  184
  danger. That is not a responsibility which I should like to have if I were a member of the committee. I would not wish to be continuously apprised of all the secret information about operational matters.
  Parliament needs to scrutinise the considerable sums of money that are spent by the security services—as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned. It is right that Parliament has a scrutiny to ensure that we obtain value for money.
  It is important for the committee to convince itself that correct procedures are being followed in operational matters, but it is more important than anything else to have some parliamentary input into the setting of priorities in the operations of our security and intelligence services. The pattern of threats to our security changes daily. It does no harm to broaden the debate about what our priorities should be, where the money should be spent and where people should be deployed and things done. It is difficult to achieve a balance in the allocation of resources to our intelligence services. I believe that it would be of great benefit if that debate were broadened by a parliamentary committee, so I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friends on bringing it forward.
  5.53 pm
  Sir David Steel: The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) has a well-deserved reputation in the House for parliamentary candour, but he took quite a few breaths away a few moments ago when he announced that what he had told us so recently from the Front Bench about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was something which he did not really believe. That is characteristic of him.
  I recall a celebrated occasion, before the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was a Minister, when he presented to the House a petition on behalf of his constituents opposing the construction of the M25, and a week later he popped up and presented another petition on behalf of his constituents in favour of the construction of the M25. There were puzzled faces in the House. I well remember his saying that we were entitled to know his own position, and that he had decided resolutely to remain on the fence as it was the only comfortable place to be in the circumstances. I believe, therefore, that he has demonstrated, then and again this afternoon, that he would be an excellent member of the committee that is proposed in the Bill.
  I must not be tempted to stray from the few words that I want to address to the House. Let me begin by saying, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, that I join the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the work of the intelligence services at every level. The fact that we are discussing scrutiny mechanisms is not a reflection on their dedication or competence. I pay all members of the intelligence services, past and present, full tribute—including the 14 sacked trade unionists at GCHQ Cheltenham, a subject to which I will return later.
  My party gives an unqualified welcome to the principle of the Bill. We will support it tonight, because we have a long-standing policy and a long-standing view that there is a need for parliamentary scrutiny of the security services.
  My mind goes back to when our anxieties were first provoked. It was during the period of the Labour Government—I think it was the Labour Government under Harold Wilson—when there was great anxiety in the

  185
  House, in the press and among the public about the scale of telephone tapping. Naturally, it was impossible to get Ministers to answer on the subject and no one knew whether the scale of telephone tapping, which was excessive, was authorised or unauthorised. There was no way in which the anxieties of the House could be resolved. If we had had a committee at that time, it would at least have been able to make a report on the matter.
  Our view was that the proper course was to have a committee of Privy Councillors, and that was the view that we took when I was leader of the party. I will say later why we took that view. As recently as the passage of the Security Service Act 1989, the lack of parliamentary scrutiny caused us to vote against the legislation.
  I therefore welcome the Government's change of heart and the broad outline of the Bill, but I wish to ask some questions, which I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will answer later, about the definition of expenditure, administration and policy, the words used in the Bill.
  First, we need to be sure how wide are the remits and the powers of the scrutiny that is proposed. As to policy, for example, reference has already been made to events in Iraq before the invasion of Kuwait. To what extent were the security services involved in the decisions? I do not want to trespass on the ground being covered by the Scott inquiry, but it is obvious that the intelligence services must have given advice to Ministers about the process of rearming Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war, as a counterbalance, supposedly, to the growing power of Iran.
  Secondly, there is the subject of GCHQ and unionisation there. A few months ago, it appeared that the Government were likely to reach some agreement on the basis of a no-strike agreement at GCHQ, but that possibility fizzled out and came to nothing. Will the committee be able to consider a happy resolution of that matter as a matter of policy?
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about priorities. Will the committee be able to examine the remit of the security services, especially in the sectors of political surveillance and the internal political intelligence role? I ask that question because of what was said by the former Home Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when he recounted in another place his experience, which he could best describe as
  "an inherent lack of frankness, an ingrowing mono-culture and a confidence-destroying tendency to engage in the most devastating internal feuds"
  — pretty strong language from someone who was in charge of the service. He argued that he was doubtful about the internal political intelligence role. He said that he assumed that the object was to help Ministers with useful information, but he went on to say that, in his experience,
  "the organisation concerned consumed far more of
  his
  "time as a Minister with its own internal squabbles than any useful information which it ever provided. The balance was distinctly negative."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 1993; Vol. 550, c. 1034.]
  That is merely the view of one former Home Secretary, but we must take it seriously. I should have thought that one of the early objectives of the new committee should be to ensure that the policy of the services in those spheres was correct. I should like confirmation of how wide the definition of policy is to be.
  186
  Similarly, is what we all know to be the widespread practice that was revealed in the Matrix Churchill case —the employment of business men in foreign countries as part-time agents—a sensible form of administration? Will the committee ever enjoy the power of the relative committee in the United States Congress of overseeing the appointment of senior officials? Is that to be part of administration? Will the committee be able to examine individual cases? I am referring not to complaints of the kind to be dealt with by the tribunal but to individual operational cases that have gone wrong—not current cases —in order that lessons may be learnt for the future.
  I was not happy with the Foreign Secretary's reply to my intervention. I should like to know whether the committee, like the commissioner, will be able to question the use, and the scale of use, of warrants issued by the Secretaries of State or whether that matter is to be reserved for the commissioner and denied to the committee. If so, that would be wrong. We need a little more clarification of what is meant by administration.
  As for expenditure, various figures have been bandied about. The largest that I have heard is £900 million, which I find difficult to believe. The cold war has ended and, although that does not necessarily mean that all threats have disappeared, the taxpayer has the right to ask who is scrutinising the expenditure. The former Secretary of State for Defence gave us an insight into a meeting with a Chief Secretary about a public expenditure round which he thought was unsatisfactory. Clearly there is a great deal of work to be done.
  Lord Howe of Aberavon, the former Foreign Secretary, said that there was a danger that the intelligence services would find new targets to replace those that had gone, in order to keep people busy. I do not think that that is too much of a danger. Like, I am sure, many others, I am deeply disappointed by the global picture left after the end of the cold war. There are new areas where the intelligence services are, sadly, now needed in order to find out exactly what is going on following the disintegration of the cold war super-power structure. I believe that the great majority of people will accept that the security services are needed in the war against drugs and terrorism and against arms traffic, particularly the traffic of nuclear and chemical weapons. However, if the secret service is to be worth having, it must remain secret, and here I come back to the difficulty of how the committee will operate.
  To be fair, the Government have made a pretty good stab at solving the problem, but they have not necessarily got it quite right yet. I hope that they will be generous in Committee in allowing consideration of the many suggestions, some of which have been made today and others that will no doubt be made in the form of amendments.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) that if the committee is not covered by privilege—I do not understand why it should not be—it must be. If it does not yet have the power to send for persons and papers, such a power should be written into the Bill in Committee because the committee will not be able to operate effectively without it.
  I suspect that I shall be in a minority, and I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in this case, but I believe that there is a case for the committee's being composed of Privy Councillors. I do not say that because I believe that they have any particular wisdom, and I do not share the view that they belong to a cosy, conspiratorial club, but,

  187
  unless the members are Privy Councillors, we might find that the fact that there are non-Privy Councillors on the committee is used as an excuse for failing to provide the committee with the information that it needs. I think I am right in saying that one of the members of the Franks inquiry was made a Privy Councillor after his appointment so that that very danger could be avoided. The House should consider the matter very carefully.
  I am also concerned about the reference in the schedules to how the members of the committee are to be fired. There is a reference to members vacating their post if required to do so by the Prime Minister. In other words, the House will have no say in the matter, which will be decided by Prime Minister's fiat. One is bound to ask the rather odd question, what security of office will the members of the security committee have? If there are awkward members on the committee—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) catches my eye, and he is a good example—will they find that their security of tenure suddenly comes to an end? I do not have an easy solution, but we should explore the problem further in Committee.
  I shall make two final points relating to the committee's access to information. Schedule 3 refers to the fact that information may be denied to the committee if the Secretary of State has determined that it should not be disclosed. The phrase "Secretary of State" in an Act is a term of art, but we are entitled to know how many Secretaries of State are covered by that term. Presumably, it will not cover only the Foreign and Home Secretaries —it is likely that a large number could decide that the committee must be denied information. I should like further clarification of that issue.
  The right hon. Member for Dudley, East mentioned the report that the committee will make to the Prime Minister. I agree with his description of what should occur in the nature of bargaining about its contents—"bargaining" is perhaps the wrong word; I mean "intelligent discussion" —and about what may or may not be sidelined, but I believe strongly that if the committee disagrees with the Prime Minister at any point about what should be in the report, the fact of that disagreement must be made known to the House. The right hon. Member for Dudley, East shakes his head, but it is important that both Houses—the committee will comprise Members of both Houses—should be told of any disagreement between the Prime Minister and the watchdog body that we are proposing to establish.
  It is not an easy matter and I do not subscribe to the view that the committee should be a routine Select Committee. It must be unique in its authority, style and powers and it is important that in Committee the Government are generous in considering suggestions to improve the mechanism, which, as a whole, I warmly welcome.
  6.7 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the way in which he presented it. He did so very fairly and he has done something that no one else in politics has ever done—he has brought the security services to the attention of the public and allowed what has often been the dark room of the secret services to be opened up.
  188
  I shall refer to a few of the items mentioned by the former leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not do so immediately.
  What is to be welcomed in the Bill? For the first time, the public can know that a committee is to be structured to oversee the expenditure, the administration and the policy of all the intelligence services and Government communication headquarters. Although not a parliamentary committee, it is sensible for it to be composed of senior Members of Parliament, not only from the party in government but from the parties in opposition. For the first time, the functions and purposes of the intelligence services are to be scrutinised and their finances inspected and commented on by persons outside the establishment circle of the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and for Defence and the Home Secretary.
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) centred on clause 10 and schedule 3. Mine will do the same. I am pleased that the committee will not investigate individual complaints that may be made against the intelligence services. That is to be done elsewhere. If the committee had to deal with those, heaven knows where it would be.
  It seems to have been fair game for anyone to criticise the secret services and to make allegations that, on the whole—unless the Prime Minister sees fit to intervene, which more or less never happens—are not rebutted. It seems to have been open season for people to write whatever they like. That situation should not be accepted, now or in the future, and the Bill takes a giant step towards blocking that loophole. Equally, full and detailed criticism of the policy and overall management of any of the services can now be assessed and examined in a way that has never been possible before. That should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as it has been so far.
  There is some disagreement about whether the committee should be a Select Committee. However, there is no doubt that if the committee is to do its job properly, most of the time it will be considering highly confidential information of particular concern for the security of the country as a whole. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that over the past three or four years there have been a great many leaks from the reports of Select Committees and that although they have been investigated by the Select Committees concerned and referred both to the Procedure Committee and to the Liaison Committee, it has not been possible to do anything to stop them. Indeed, the press has refused to refrain from publishing leaks of details from draft reports, which often have no real standing, and such leaks continue to be published.
  Could not leaks from the committee—
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: May I finish what I was saying?
  Could not leaks from the new committee cause great harm to the work of the intelligence services and to the interests of the country? I suspect that in the real world much confidential and secret material would not be made available to the committee if it were a House of Commons Select Committee. That is sad, but, at the moment, true.
  Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need to avoid leaks, but I am sure that he will also confirm that the intelligence service has proved extremely

  189
  leaky, albeit selectively, over the past 10 years or so—to the extent that journalists have been able to write books apparently with corroboration by its serving members. Should not the rules apply to everyone, rather than to Parliament alone?
  Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to accede to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Indeed, perhaps the intelligence service ought to pursue a little more carefully some of its own activities.
  I shall now deal with the manning of the committee. Six seems a sensible number; it should not be too large. I am glad that there is to be a member of the other place on the committee, but I urge that that person should not have to be permanently present for there to be a quorum. That would put much too great a load on whoever was nominated.
  The Canadian Parliament provides the example that is in many ways closest to our own and I recall that in the late 1970s it went through a similar exercise and decided to have a committee of five. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, the former leader of the Liberal party, said, everyone on the Canadian committee had to be a Privy Councillor. I believe that there is some benefit in appointing senior Members of Parliament, although perhaps not necessarily Privy Councillors, so that the committee does not appear to be an old establishment club. However, having been appointed, perhaps its members should be made Privy Councillors for the purposes of the committee. If they are good enough to be given the security information, they are probably worthy of such recognition.
  If the committee is to carry out its work fully, it will consider much information in great depth, which will be time consuming and will require a great deal of reading. The work could well take half a day every day of the week if it were done fully. The management of an industrial organisation spending £900 million a year would spend that sort of time examining its administration, policies and financing.
  In that connection, I note that the Bill allows for payment to the commissioner, but not to any of the other members of the committee. That may be all right for Members of the House of Commons, who receive a parliamentary salary, but we in this House might make a case on behalf of the poor member from the House of Lords, who will not have a parliamentary salary and who will be entitled to payment only by attending the other place, which his duties on the committee are likely to prevent him from doing. In Committee, we should consider the possibility of funding for that purpose.
  When the committee reports, is it satisfactory that it should do so first and only to the Prime Minister? It is important that the Prime Minister should publish its reports. I was led to understand that he would publish all of them, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to tell us, when he answers the debate, whether that is the case.
  I am certain that nothing in the Bill will take away the committee's ability, if dissatisfied with the amount of information vetted and removed from its annual report by the Prime Minister, to return to the subject and, if necessary, to make a further report so that the matter can be considered. Nothing in the Bill takes the ultimate
  190
  responsibility away from the Prime Minister, so it should be the Prime Minister who decides what comes to Parliament. It is right and proper that reporting should work in that way.
  Will the Minister give me an assurance that knowledge of documents and the classification of documents will be made available to the new committee? That question arises from certain facts that have emerged in the United States in connection with the working of the Freedom of Information Act. There, it has become evident that information has been upgraded to "secret" or "highly secret" so as to cover up—I use the American term "a balls-up". One can imagine some managers being willing to take that approach here if they have made a mess of their work. We need the Minister to give us an assurance that if there is any evidence or proof that that has happened, the strongest action will be taken against any perpetrator?
  I shall now come quickly to my conclusion, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. Having welcomed the Bill, I have tried to analyse some parts of it. If the Intelligence and Security Committee is to be seen and judged as more than a cosmetic protective facade for the security services, it must be seen to have teeth. I agree with the right hon. Members for Dudley, East and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that there is no reason why the committee should not have the same powers as a Select Committee to call for persons and papers. Clearly it will have the power, which we see in use all the time, to call for the heads of the services. Also, in calling for persons and papers, the committee should not be able to call for serving members of the security forces, who must be protected and should be represented by the Minister or by the heads of their departments.
  If there is a public outcry about the adminstration of certain aspects of the security forces, whether by the press, journalists or authors, I see every reason for the committee having the power to be able to call before it the perpetrators of those especial accusations so that it is able to inquire more fully. The perpetrators could be invited to appear, but, if they refuse that invitation, the committee ought to have the power to ensure that they attend.
  The committee should be staffed adequately and have funds to carry out its duties. That may well mean that it needs to pay advisers for certain aspects of its work. It needs to be able to authorise persons to disclose information that would otherwise be covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989. Paragraph 5 of schedule 4 would amend the existing law by adding the tribunal to the bodies that may give official authorisation to persons to disclose information the disclosure of which would otherwise be unlawful under the Official Secrets Act. Surely, if that power is to be given to the tribunal, it ought also to be given to the committee. Otherwise, certain evidence may not be as apparent as it ought to be.
  It must also be seen that the members of the committee are reporting only to the Prime Minister and that, when they are approached, as they will be, by the media on any sort on any matter, they should say only that they are investigating and that they shall be reporting to the Prime Minister. They will be urged to say this, that and the other, and their position will be difficult unless they stand firm and say they have no comments to make on matters, that the investigation is for them and that a report is to be made to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister publishes that report, the committee members may comment on it,

  191
  but until that point, they should be given the safeguard of not being badgered by the press to make comments about what is or is not being considered by the committee.
  Given those powers and that the committee, when appointed, is manned by persons who are known and have been seen to be of independent mien—persons who are considered to be good House of Commons men and, if I may say, the committee should not be a resting place for former senior Ministers—the structure of the Bill will allow the public to have confidence and know that there is adequate supervision so that the nation's security forces are acting for our defence and for the defence of the nation.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: The speech of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) was so nearly a perfect replica of the Government's position that I have a feeling that he may be destined for a place on this distinguished committee. At one point, I even thought that he was negotiating the remuneration. Should he be so fortunate as to catch the Prime Minister's eye, I am sure that he would make a suitable member.
  I welcome the Bill as a first and long-overdue step along the road towards rendering our security establishment democratically accountable. The measures outlined in the Bill provide the barest minimum of accountability, but, when measured against past experience, it is quite a large step forward, since we have never previously taken any forward steps that I have been able to detect.
  However, we have a long way to go before our security services are worthy of a modern democracy. What is proposed falls a long way short of what is taken for granted in the United States, Canada, Australia and other democracies which we profess to admire. One of the ironies is that the Russians always seem to know more about our security services than do Parliament or the British people. That was so in the past. I hope that that will not be the case in future, as the Russian services have been a little less efficient recently.
  One of the difficulties with the security services has always been that, while demanding the right to absolute secrecy, their members have always felt at liberty to talk to selected journalists and to selected Members of Parliament. However, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, asked a while ago whether it could interview the head of MI5, it was initially told by the Home Office that it could not do so under any circumstances and that hell would freeze over before that was possible. I rang round a few newspaper editors and found that the head of MI5 had been dining with them. We also discovered that the previous head of MI5, Sir Patrick Walker, had given the farewell speech at the retirement party of Sir David Nicholas, the former editor of ITN, at the Savoy and had begun his speech with the words:
  "My name is Patrick Walker, I am the head of MI5".
  When we put that to the Home Secretary, we subsequently received an invitation to lunch with Stella Rimington, for which we were extremely grateful. However, as we said in our report, that was no substitute for proper accountability.
  It will not have escaped the attention of students of such matters that over the years—I do not suggest that the problems necessarily exist today, as there has been quite a large clear-out in the past few years, for which we must be grateful—there have been a few problems with our security services. One of the problems in dealing with the security services is that they spend a large amount of public money.
  192
  It is, by and large, unaccounted for, although we have had a few global figures every so often. If one strains over the Terrace, one may have a glimpse of the lavish new MI6 headquarters near Vauxhall bridge and there is the new MI5 building on Millbank which one cannot see from the Terrace.
  Having large sums of money and not being accountable to anyone for spending it inevitably leads to bad habits; it would happen whatever the regime. When the committee studies the financing of the Security Service, it will need to be rigorous, but it is not unknown for security services to exercise some ingenuity in burying inconvenient expenditure in other budgets.
  Over the years, there has also been evidence of gross incompetence. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) quoted his hon. Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead as saying that the security services in his time were much preoccupied with internal feuding. Such evidence as has been published suggests that, for a period in the 1970s and the 1980s, they were paralysed by internal feuding on a scale that one might have expected from small Trotskyist groups. Evidence suggested that they became extremely introverted and their employees only mixed in circles where their views were never seriously challenged, because, for most of the time, they were with people of identical views. A former Tory Home Secretary said to me a while ago that there had been a great deal of dead wood—his expression not mine—but that it had been cleared up a little, and I welcome that.
  Secrecy has been used over the years to disguise incompetence, apart from anything else, and we are entitled to know that the vast sums being spent are being spent to achieve proper security of the country and are not financing unrelated ventures. I am not satisfied that the quality of the intelligence service has always been as high as it has been made out to be. I remember during the Gulf war when a number of people of Iraqi origin were seized arbitrarily and plonked in Pentonville prison. Three of them were my constituents, one of whom ran a kebab shop somewhere in Sunderland, which was thought to be subversive to the national interest. They all had to be released eventually because it was discovered that the information supplied by the security services on most, if not all, of those seized, was wholly inaccurate. That does not give us grounds for confidence at the time of a national emergency.
  The third problem that is a matter of record is that in years gone by—I hope that it has changed; indeed, I am confident that it has changed—the security services have been targeted to some extent against members of the elected Government. There was a series of smear campaigns against a former Labour Prime Minister—that has been well documented—a former Home Secretary, Lord Merlyn-Rees, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I do not think that it is right—I am sure that no one would justify this—that persons who are paid to defend the security of the state should waste time and resources on attempting to undermine members of the elected Government.
  As recently as three or four years ago—I think it was in 1989 when we were debating the Official Secrets Bill—on the front page of the Sunday Express there was a headline about a lady spy and a Labour Minister and a picture of a noble Lord who defected to the SDP because he was such

  193
  a great threat to our democracy. Obviously, the picture had come from a security source—it had been taken 10 or 20 years previously. I cannot imagine why someone thought it worth while to put the picture on the front pages of the Sunday Express I think that it was to tell us that not so much had changed as was being alleged.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's overall point, but he is repeating what may turn out to be no more than gossip and allegations. I am surprised that he quoted from the Sunday Express. I do not believe everything that I read in newspapers and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not either. I think that a lot of this is possibly a wild allegation.
  Mr. Mullin: My point is that the photograph appeared on the front page of the Sunday Express. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to look it up in the Library if he so wishes. I have a copy somewhere—it is not controversial. One can see that the photograph was not taken by a photographer from the Sunday Express. I do not want to make a big deal of what is simply a little illustration of a wider problem.
  The fourth problem that has been with us over the years is that in the past the security services have been targeted —perhaps Ministers should take responsibility for this—against those engaged in legitimate political activity, and sometimes no political activity at all.
  Some years ago, I wrote a novel which was dismissed by some at the time as typical left-wing paranoia. The book shared a similar plot to one written by the Foreign Secretary. He and I have one thing in common—we have both written novels about an attempt by the right wing to destabilise an elected Government. Among the features of my little novel was that all senior employees of the BBC were vetted by MI5. A few years ago, that turned out to be Brigadier Ronnie Stoneham occupying room 103 at Broadcasting House. I had an MI5 agent on the general council of the CND. Some years later, that turned out to be a chap called Harry Newton. As a matter of routine, I had MI5 bugging Labour Ministers. Mr. Peter Wright's book was published some time later and confirmed that at least some of that had occurred. [Interruption.] There was a grain of truth about Mr. Wright's allegations; otherwise, the Government would not have gone to such lengths to suppress them.
  About three or four years ago, I went to lunch with Mr. Marmaduke Hussey, the chairman of the BBC. The purpose of the lunch was to bend my ears and those of a number of my colleagues on the subject of the Broadcasting Bill which was being introduced at the time. Halfway through the lunch, I asked who worked in room 103 now that Brigadier Stoneham had retired. All around the table, one could hear the sound of knives and forks hitting plates. Marmaduke, clearly choking on his smoked salmon, said, "Patricia, I think this one is for you". A lady down the other end of the table said that she thought it was a special assistant to the director-general. I asked, "What is his name and what does he do?"
  We had the top brass of the BBC around the table and none of them could name the special assistant, let alone tell us what he did. There were some clumsy attempts to change the subject and I said, "I'll tell you what, why don't I nip down, knock on the door and see?" "Don't do that," they said, "we'll send you a letter." With a little
  194
  prompting, they did. I received a letter in which the BBC was at pains to assure me that everything had changed since Brigadier Stoneham's day. However, it seemed to suggest that a man with a similar background and doing a similar job was still in place there.
  I wonder whether it is necessary for all senior BBC personnel to be vetted in that way and for some of them —I speak as a former BBC employee—to be honoured with an upturned Christmas tree on their personnel file. I wonder whether that was ever necessary. As we are on the subject, I also wonder how a former head of MI5 came to be so close to the editor of ITN that he was called to give a speech at the man's retirement party. It may be that they are neighbours somewhere down in Surrey or they went to the same school, but there is another explanation that I invite hon. Members to contemplate.
  It has been alleged more recently that some of the spare capacity at GCHQ has been used to bug domestic telephones, which is outside its remit. The allegation came from someone who worked in the Cabinet Office until shortly before he made the allegation. I do not know whether that is true—I only know that these matters are part of the problems that we have had with the security services over the years.
  Another feature is that the security services have engaged in operations that are difficult to justify in terms of national security. I am talking about some of the arms contracts to Iraq, which have already been mentioned, and —I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) is not present, because I have a feeling that he has something to do with this—the training of Khmer terrorists in Thailand by British soldiers. That went on from about 1982 until the present Foreign Secretary came to power—God bless him—and put a stop to it in 1989.
  I do not know how that could ever have been justified in terms of national security. We had no possible national security interest unless we owed a few favours to the Americans in return for what they did for us in the Falklands war, which they were calling in.
  Mr. William Cash: Did the hon. Gentleman note the article written by Boris Johnson a week last Sunday in which he suggested that questions of espionage and matters relating to GCHQ and so on had been transferred, as it were, to questions arising out of the European Union, defence questions and all these other matters? Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in national security, does he regard it as significant, interesting or absurd that we are apparently transferring responsibility even to the European Union, raising questions of treason?
  Mr. Mullin: I am not sure that I am qualified to say, but I express admiration for the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in managing to get his hobby horse in to this debate.
  I mentioned all the past problems that we have had with the security services because they are a matter of record. It is also a matter of record that when caught, they have casually lied about what they did in the past, as they did to Lord Callaghan. When Lord Callaghan instituted an inquiry at the end of the 1970s, he was grossly misled about what was going on. When the security services do not lie, they sometimes suppress evidence that is inconvenient to the official version of events. The Matrix Churchill case is possibly the best, most recent example of that.

  195
  The test of the Bill will be the extent to which it helps us to resolve those problems and change the culture in the security services. The culture may have already changed to some extent. Perhaps we would not have the Bill if it had not already changed, so we must be grateful for small mercies.
  Under clause 8 of the Bill, a commissioner will be appointed to report to the Prime Minister, and a tribunal will be appointed to deal with complaints. As has already been said, those are features of other legislation. A tribunal was set up under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. I believe that I am right in saying—the Minister will put me right if I am not—that that tribunal has never upheld a complaint in its nine-year history.
  The Security Service Commissioner was set up under the legislation in 1989. The Foreign Secretary, in opening the debate, said that the commissioner had given him a hard time—I think rigorous was the word used by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not so rigorous that any word reached the outside world, or was reflected in the rather bland reports that sometimes find their way into the Library.
  There are two possibilities. The first is that both the previous complaints tribunal and the one under the Bill are presiding over a nearly perfect system. That may explain why no complaint has ever been upheld at any of the tribunals. The other is that perhaps the scrutiny that they have exercised so far has not been as rigorous as it should.
  The Intelligence and Security Committee, which will be set up under clause 10, has been referred to by other hon. Members. The committee will have six Members appointed, and dismissed, by the Prime Minister. It will report to the Prime Minister, who may exclude any item he wishes before a report is laid before Parliament. The committee will deal with expenditure, administration and policy, but not operations.
  No hon. Member can seriously expect that the committee should have a detailed knowledge of operations. Clearly that does not make sense, but there is a grey area between operations and policy as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). When does a policy become an operation, and therefore outside the remit of the committee? Brigadier Stoneham and his heirs at the BBC—are they a policy or an operation? That area ought to come within the remit of the committee. I would hate committee members to be told after raising a subject that it was an operation and outside their remit.
  I share the view given by most hon. Members that the committee should be a Select Committee, which is appointed by, and accountable to, Parliament.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will my hon. Friend serve on it?
  Mr. Mullin: My hon. and very good friend asks me if I would be willing to serve on the Committee. I do not think that I shall be flooded with invitations, so the House must not consider this to be a job application.
  The committee should be accountable to Parliament and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) has said, it should have powers to send for persons and papers and should be covered by privilege. Reference has been made to the staff who will work for the committee. That is an important point which has not been touched on in the debate so far. Who will be the staff? Will
  196
  persons be sent down from Millbank or Vauxhall to service the committee? Will it be people who are employed by Parliament, and who share Parliament's desire for scrutiny? Will they come from the Cabinet Office in Whitehall?
  That is rather important, because hon. Members who serve on Select Committees know the extent to which we are dependent upon those who staff those Committees. Obviously, hon. Members could be easily led astray, or the committee could be led into complacency, if the staff were not of a suitably rigorous frame of mind.
  Dr. Gilbert: There is another point on the question of staff to which my hon. Friend has not alluded. Will not it be necessary for the committee to have at least one member of staff from this place to advise it on procedure?
  Mr. Mullin: That is right. Who staffs the committee is nearly as important as who sits on it.
  As the committee will not be a Select Committee, it will not be accountable to Parliament, will not have powers to send for persons and papers that are not covered by privilege and may not have the power to select its staff, we will be dependent entirely on those lucky people who are appointed to sit on the committee.
  If the Government are serious in their desire to make the intelligence services accountable to the people whose interests they are supposed to serve, I hope that those who are appointed to the committee will be of a sufficiently rigorous and inquiring frame of mind. I hope that they will not be tame pussycats who will roll over to have their tummies tickled at the first sound of the magic words "national security" being whispered in their ears.
  Some names have been canvassed already, and I make no comment on any of them. Some of them look worthy, but it does trouble me slightly how predictable it seems. When the subject was first raised more than a year ago —about the time of the Home Affairs Select Committee report—the same old names came up. I may be pleasantly surprised, and find that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and inquiring and rigorous minds of that nature are appointed. I am also prepared for the possibility that I may not be all that surprised.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend has probably had the same type of letter that I received from a constituent. My constituent worked at Coulport for a few months, where bombs and weapons are made. He was told that he had been fired because he had not been given a security pass. I wrote to find out why, and was told that it was because of national security. However, my constituent got his job back because somebody had made a tragic mistake.
  Unfortunately, there seem to be lots of those tragic mistakes when people have been denied the opportunity to work. Hon. Members do not get satisfactory answers or conclusive statements to allow us to make a case, and so we drop the cases. We are not really looking after our constituents properly because of the bland replies.
  Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend is certainly right that one of the effects of blanket secrecy is that mistakes get made and covered up, although that is not necessarily intentional. I hope that that culture will change under whatever system is established.
  I will conclude on this note. As I said at the outset—and we should not be churlish—this is a small step in the right

  197
  direction. Those of us who are reformists by nature will be grateful for small mercies, but we have a long way to go before we can call ourselves a modern democracy.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. David Howell: Like almost every hon. Member, I welcome the Bill in principle and, for the most part, in practice although one or two rough edges need smoothing off.
  I am worried about the concept of further steps which seems to be creeping into everyone's speeches and which implies that more is to come and that we have not reached a settled order of things. It also implies that this measure is just experimental and may lead to other things. Many hon. Members have indicated clearly what they want. It seems to me that either this measure is a balance, in which case one keeps it as a balance, or it is a further step.
  The problem with steps is that they tend to be followed by further steps, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said when he began his delightfully anecdotal speech. The trouble with stepping off a balance is that you lose your balance. I hope that we shall lose that terminology and concentrate on the fact that this is a new arrangement for an established order of things, that we shall make it work and that it has an underlying stability. It is not healthy for the conduct of the secret intelligence services if they feel that this measure is a temporary stopping point before we rush on to other things. I hope that there will be no more talk of steps, and certainly no more from those who are trying to advocate and establish that this is where we are now and where we should dig in and stay.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised the continuing need for intelligence services in a world where people who have been caught up in the great spy dramas we have all enjoyed in paperbacks think that the role of the special intelligence services finished with the end of the cold war, on the day when the KGB began having open days at Ljubyanka. That is nonsense. We are in a completely new situation. Terrible things may yet happen in Russia—not a return to previous ideology, but other unpleasant things. One hopes that they will not, but they may. There are also a whole variety of new threats to which hon. Members have rightly referred.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised the modern nature of terrorism. It is, indeed, a changing phenomenon and it is spreading in weird and dangerous ways. We think that terrorism, say, in Egypt, Algeria or the Maghreb in general or the operations mounted and orchestrated out of Khartoum are remote to us. People say, "What is the threat to us?" The answer is that if such things get out of control they can be a threat to the stability of Europe, including northern Europe. There are great dangers which we need to know about well in advance.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the proliferation of weapons. That is obviously dangerous now, with the dispersal of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. We should be aware of the proliferation not only of nuclear weapons but of all sorts of other weapons of mass destruction. We are living in a world in which, just as we seek to use preventive diplomacy to halt really nasty conflicts before they escalate, we need preventive secrecy to operate on a highly efficient basis and to be allowed to proceed in ways
  198
  that permit the operational freedom necessary to be in advance of any nasty developments that could come out into the open, which would mean that we were too late. That means secret work. Secret work means a careful and sensitive scrutiny, and it is on that aspect that I wish to make a few remarks. I shall not detain the House long.
  First, I wish to ask a question about accounts and cost. I am glad that a single published figure for the cost of security is to become available. Hitherto, little bits of the cost popped into the estimates which come before the various Select Committees, including the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, on which I serve. Then, suddenly, great lumps such as the vast cost of the new establishment at Vauxhall Cross appeared, sitting unhappily and out of context in the middle of the Foreign Office Vote or some other Vote.
  If the overall figure is available, the policy makers and Ministers will have to keep justifying the secret service and the case for it in new conditions. Otherwise, people will ask—this has already been hinted at in some speeches—"Why do we need to continue spending this amount of money? What are these people doing?" The emergence of a single figure will require in parallel with it a sustained, systematic and regular justification of expenditure on the intelligence services. The two things must go together. Otherwise, there will be growing doubts and scepticism when the figures are bandied about.
  The committee of parliamentarians has preoccupied us all. It has been rightly pointed out that it will not be a Committee of Parliament. It will not be a Select Committee. It will be a rather new animal. It is hard to think of an analogue for this group of people who will be Members of both Houses of Parliament and will be appointed by the Government. That sounds as if they will be part of the Executive; yet somehow they are supposed to be a filter which will exert a degree of accountability that will satisfy Parliament.
  The committee will report annually, as we know, but it will not report to Parliament. It will report to the Prime Minister and it will have a task of oversight which will be extremely large. It will examine the whole range of expenditure. We are apparently talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, although we are not sure how much. The committee will examine administration, which will be a very large operation. It will also look at policy.
  The committee will stand aside from operational matters. However, those hon. Members who have said that there is a grey area are right. There is always a grey area between policy and detailed operations. It is not always easy to draw the line. All that looks to me like work, and a great deal of work. The committee will have a very considerable task if it is really to have oversight. It will have large responsibilities.
  Contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) said about the need for a small committee, I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends may have to consider adding a couple more members to the committee. They will certainly have to consider something slightly larger. I believe that the tasks are very considerable. One could be looking at an extremely time-consuming occupation and not the sort of thing that can be taken on by someone who already sits on six other committees. The members of the committee will not be able to pop in like, dare I say it, a non-executive director in rather more casual circumstances—this is not

  199
  always a good idea—who has fiduciary responsibilities but little power because he or she does not have access to the detailed executive and management accounts.
  The oversight will therefore be quite a tricky operation. It is experimental in the sense that it is a new system. I do not mean that it is experimental in the sense that it will be temporary. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the boldness of his thought in tackling the matter.
  With his usual persuasive elegance, the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) said that we should go the whole hog and have a Select Committee. But that is something completely different in philosophy and design from what Ministers had in mind. There may be a case for it, but a Select Committee is completely different. I was previously a little doubtful about Select Committees. It will surprise no one to learn that I am now rather an enthusiast about the way in which they have developed. I certainly do not hold the view that one of my senior colleagues held when we were constructing the predecessors to the Select Committees back in the early 1970s. He thought that they were merely a useful device for keeping people out of mischief and giving work to idle hands.
  Select Committees are rather effective, but they report to Parliament. We are driven—I speak for the Select Committee on which I serve—in directing our work and questions by what we have picked up by a process of osmosis from the House as a whole. We pick up from all parties what Parliament is interested in and concerned about. We report to Parliament. We are staffed by servants of Parliament. Although one has to exercise some restraint, we are open to outside comment and views and accessible to outside lobbies. Of course, we are also open to the press, which is bound, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to badger the committee once the identities of the persons involved are known. The press will constantly ask questions which the members will not be allowed to answer.
  The committee's report will not be a report to Parliament. It will be a report to the Prime Minister, who will be able to excise any necessary bits before he presents it to the House of Commons. So it will be a tough line to hold. That is why I am worried about all this talk of steps. The committee's responsibilities will be considerable. Like other hon. Members, I am not clear about the nature of its powers. Expenditure, administration and policy are enormous areas. One wonders how the six good men and women will tackle the vast budget, which will be as big as that of many medium and large-sized companies.
  If the committee had powers to send for persons and papers, which it does not have under the Bill now, which ones would it send for and how would it know what to send for? It is a difficult matter. Those who are appointed will have a hard and unfamiliar path to follow. They will need a great deal of support and encouragement from Ministers if they are to do their work effectively.
  In principle, I welcome the Bill. It is a real attempt to achieve a balance between two almost irreconcilable things —the absolute and overriding need for operational secrecy, so that we can have an effective intelligence service to protect this island in an increasingly dangerous world, and the prefectly natural desire of a free Parliament to call to account people who act in the name of the state and spend taxpayers' money. There is no solution. If one went the whole Select Committee way, one would go too far into
  200
  the, to my mind, enjoyable area of accountability and I am convinced that that would undermine the effective secrecy of the operation. If one took the attitude that nothing could be done—that no parliamentary figures at all were to be involved—we would remain where we are now, but that is not what the House wants. People want movement and it is to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's great credit that he has produced movement and come up with a new idea. However, very careful and energetic establishment will be necessary. This should not be paraded as just a step to something else: it is a balance, which will have to be kept with the utmost skill.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I welcome the production of this important Bill, which will lead to greater openness. I believe that the Prime Minister has got it right by making the move at this time, and the structure of the Bill is about right. The idea of a commissioner, a tribunal and a parliamentary committee was debated at great length by some of us during the passage of the Security Service Act 1989.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not a parliamentary committee.
  Mr. Randall: I accept that. Indeed, this committee is unique. Part of its uniqueness lies in the fact that there must be a balance between the openness that so many hon. Members have called for and the effectiveness of the Secret Intelligence Service. That is what this is all about.
  The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) talked about steps. I believe that that is indeed what we are discussing. The first step must be all about confidence-building. This subject must be looked at from the point of view not only of parliamentarians but of those who work in the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and the Security Service. Our top priority must be to ensure that the confidence of the people working in these services is retained. We must not rush fences. At heart, I am a fairly liberal person and I normally like to rush fences. However, in this case, confidence-building is the road which we must take.
  There will be so much to learn. This is a brand new exercise, and there will be many responsibilities in the provision of parliamentary oversight. At this stage, I am happy that the step-by-step approach should involve saying yes if, for confidence reasons, the Prime Minister has to carry out a vetting operation. I shall live with that. I hope that, in practice, the committee will be sufficiently mature and professional to make it unnecessary for the Prime Minister ever to intervene. However, this is a necessary start.
  I have skipped through some stuff about Canada, which has a system slightly similar to ours. The Canadians' steps towards democratisation and accountability have lowered the performance of their intelligence and security services. That is something which we in this country must not allow to happen.
  I believe that the new committee will be able to establish its own procedure. On the question of its being able to call for persons and papers, my interpretation of the terms of reference is that that will be possible in special circumstances. But we are not talking about operational matters. It would be absurd to think for one moment that

  201
  the committee should delve into such matters. Its concern must be the three areas—policy, administration and expenditure—that are highlighted in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) made a good point about the Comptroller and Auditor General—one that I had not thought about. We are talking about a very large organisation, with a massive budget. If one of the priorities of the new committee is to look at the whole question of expenditure, it will be necessary to have mechanisms for appropriate auditing work.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend talks about this committee as if it will be able to assume that it has a right to call upon Ministers or civil servants to provide information. I cannot see where in this legislation that right is enshrined. If my hon. Friend can point to such a provision in any of the schedules, I shall be prepared to concede.
  Mr. Randall: I refer my hon. Friend to schedule 3, which refers to what the new committee will be able to do, including the setting of its priorities and procedures. One procedure could be that of calling for persons and papers. I do not know the detail. I have referred to what I think is implicit. We ought not to guess, but, instead, should ask the Minister of State to explain the Government's thinking. However, this is how I look at the matter. I very much hope that there will be flexibility, so that the committee may be as effective as possible.
  Mr. Rogers: I hope that my hon. Friend will not go much further down this road. Although he is quite right to say that the second part of schedule 3 provides that
  "the Committee may determine their own procedure",
  the part of the schedule dealing with access to information says that information can come to the committee only with the permission of the director-general of the Security Service, the chief of the intelligence service, the director of GCHQ and the Secretary of State together.
  The only material that will go to the committee is that which has been—if I may use the term—positively vetted and which the Secretary of State determines can be disclosed. If the Secretary of State says that information cannot be disclosed, it will not be disclosed, and the committee will have no right to aquire it. This is one of the Opposition's main objections to the Bill.
  Mr. Randall: I can see that my hon. Friend is referring to the part of schedule 3 that is entitled "Access to information" and to the part entitled "Sensitive information". When one reads these provisions, one sees that there is discretion. I should like the Minister of State to tell us how he sees the powers. I do not want to speculate, but it seems to me that there is a good deal of discretion.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Randall: I must proceed, as other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
  I believe that the Bill will pave the way to correction of the massive errors that the Government made when they imposed their restrictions on trade unions at GCHQ. The assertion that trade unionism is incompatible with national
  202
  security caused deep offence to many trade unionists—people who are as loyal and patriotic as anybody in the House.
  It is a disgrace that 14 people were dismissed for insisting on retaining the right to trade union membership. I hope that those men will get redress before too long. The Government are a signatory to the International Labour Organisation's convention 87, which deals with freedom of association. It is therefore unacceptable that this anomaly should be allowed to continue. At that time, it was important to recognise that what was happening at GCHQ was not in any way damaging to national security.
  I should like to deal briefly with the question of the committee. A membership of six seems rather on the small side. Indeed, it is very small. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that we must be careful about leaks, which could take place through the committee. The security of the committee must be handled properly, and I want the Minister to tell us how that can best be done.
  Perhaps it is a good idea that we are not restricting the committee to Privy Councillors. There is one practical reason why we should not do so. The Labour party has been out of power for 14 years, and has created a mere handful of Privy Councillors, so it would create some problems for us. Also, why would we need to restrict membership in that way? If the work of the committee is to be covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989, there is a mechanism to provide that protection. The oath one takes when one becomes a Privy Councillor is not as secure as signing the Official Secrets Act.
  Perhaps this is a matter for the committee, but the quorum of three, including one peer—although only one member might be a peer—does not sound practical. What do the Government think about that? Surely we must consider changing it.
  The role of the committee is to scrutinise expenditure, administration and policy. I jotted down a few policy matters that it might need to look into. For example, what role does it have now that the cold war is over? I do not know what has been happening in the various organisations. Since the end of the cold war, we have had "Options for Change" and other defence reviews. Have we carried out a comparable review of our intelligence and security services? I do not know the answer, but perhaps that would be one area for work.
  In a debate in another place, Lord Callaghan criticised the size and bureaucracy of Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham. Presumably he knew what he was talking about, as he had served as both Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary. The only other question is whether £900 million is a true figure. It seems to be a large amount, and that is another possible area for investigation.
  Russia still has a massive military capability, which is under questionable control. We knew where we were with the old Soviet communist system, but that has been replaced by fanatical nationalism and by defence policies which are nothing short of a muddle. As a consequence, there may be instability, unrest and disruption in that area —possibly even war.
  Hon. Members have mentioned terrorism, but I shall skim over that subject because I think that Ministers understand it.
  We know that there is much co-operation between various agencies in this country and their sister organisations in the European Community. Now that we

  203
  have joined the European Union, how far has that co-operation gone? I do not know. I spent five years shadowing the Minister with responsibility for the security services, so my experience of such matters is theoretical, to say the least. I usually deal with complaints by taking them to the Minister concerned. I do not know the extent to which the security services are co-operating.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend spent five years shadowing on such matters. I cannot grasp why it was so vital for members of the security services not to mix with Members of Parliament. Why would that have been wrong in principle? The Foreign Office invites people here for social functions, where we can meet and discuss matters. Why should it he wrong for my hon. Friend to be invited to the Departments to discuss aspects of such matters with members of the security services? I do not see anything wrong with that.
  Half the problem is that many hon Members are suspicious of the security services, and people in those services are suspicious of Parliament. The relationship has broken down because of mutual suspicion. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man and woman to devise a system based on a little more contact between the two.
  Mr. Randall: I do not want to answer that intervention, except to say that I used to have useful discussions with Ministers and other officials, often on Privy Councillor terms. That procedure had to be followed, and I cannot add to that.
  People are not quite so hung up as the newspapers make out, provided that such matters are dealt with reasonably reliably. Retired Labour Cabinet Ministers say that, in the main, the agencies—the main ones are MI5 and MI6—employ people who have very good reputations. Of course, there have been a few rotten apples—there are a few in every barrel—but those Labour Ministers al ways expressed great admiration for the people they dealt with, and said that they had great integrity.
  A former Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland is present. It does not take much imagination for any hon. Member to guess at the work going on there. We have a lot to thank the people responsible for as they are providing protection. Security is about the bombs we do not hear about, not those that go off. It would be wrong if hon. Members did not take that into account and recognise the brilliant work going on.
  A free and open society becomes susceptible to abuse and subversion. That is why we need the security and intelligence services—to ensure that our society is as free and open as possible. Those people who threaten Britain's political and social interests and who attempt to destabilise our society do not operate openly, but in secret. That is why our intelligence services must also operate secretly. We must accept that, and we must not attempt to undermine that secrecy.
  We are debating the introduction of a parliamentary system of accountability, monitoring and oversight. Government govern, and Parliament must oversee; that is what we are attempting to do.
  Attitudes have developed. In 1987 and 1988, when we debated the security services, I was frustrated by the way in which the then Home Secretary responded to us. His responses did not seem to hang together. However, there has been some movement, and hon. Members must welcome the steps that we are taking in the Bill.
  204
  The key is to start by recognising that there must be a confidence-building exercise. We cannot go at it too fast: it must be measured and careful, because this is a very important matter. It we make mistakes, the consequences could be serious. The intelligence and security services are too important for us to make mistakes, so we must go about the process in the right way. The Bill paves the way for that progress.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: I join other hon. Members who have welcomed the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill, although it is not the route that I would have taken.
  The Executive must account to Government and Government must account to Parliament. I have long advocated that there should be a Minister responsible for the oversight of the security services, who should report here on what they are and are not doing. However, that is not the way that we have gone. Perhaps it is too late for that because of events and our experience of the Security Service Act 1989, which we have been living with for four or five years. That said, I welcome what the Government are doing.
  I could make some wide-ranging remarks about the Bill, as other colleagues have done, but I want to be brief, so I shall confine my comments to clause 10, particularly subsection (3). I understand and fully accept why the proposed committee will not be a Select Committee. The Government could not have given the committee the powers rightly held by other such committees because of the sensitivity of the information involved and the need to maintain the security, and confidentiality of almost all the work that is undertaken by the three agencies. I accept that.
  That said, I beg my right hon. Friend and the Government, when they consider the matter more closely and scrutinise the Bill in Committee, not to be afraid of many of the ways in which Select Committees operate. It is fine and acceptable that the committee will not be a Select Committee, but the Government have decided that they must not give it a Select Committee's powers or it will look like a Select Committee. I can draw on my experience of serving on a Select Committee that dealt routinely with top-secret information over a wide range of highly sensitive subjects. The Government may be fearing unnecessarily the consequences of what some of us are asking them to do.
  The committee should be appointed and discharged by the Prime Minister, not the House, through the Committee of Selection and a motion—as happens routinely with all departmental committees. Such a motion can be debated. To try to remove an hon. Member other than with his or his party's consent, which has not happened during the course of a Parliament, would be very difficult. I acknowledge that.
  The appointment of the chairman needs to be discussed. In all other Committees of the House, the Chairman or Chairwoman is chosen by the members. The chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee is to be appointed. I do not quarrel with that—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It will not be a Committee of the House.
  Mr. Mates: I know that, but—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Seated interventions are not helpful.
  Mr. Mates: The committee will be different in that its chairman will be appointed by the Government. If we are not careful, the chairman's relationship with the members of the committee will be different from that of a Select Committee Chairman, who serves at the pleasure of his colleagues.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned that the committee will have six members. Whether it contains one or two members from the other place is a detail. I do not know why that element has been introduced, but it has and I accept that it is now there to stay. A committee of six is marginally too small for the workload that will be involved, although I accept the need to keep the committee small because of the circle of secrecy, to which the Foreign Secretary referred, and which I endorse.
  The membership needs to be an odd number because there is provision in the Bill for the chairman to have a casting vote. I do not think that the committee will take many votes—most sensible Select Committees do not. But there are the odd Committees where the Chairman constantly makes the casting vote in favour of the Government of the day, because that is where the majority lies. That would not make for a good working relationship in the committee. At the very least, the committee should have seven members so that we do not face that problem.
  The committee must also have a clerk who comes from this place because the procedural advice given has to be professional and professionally delivered. If the staff of the committee were to come from outside the House, it would not work. I commend that course to my right hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) talked about leaks. That is not something that the House or Government need to fear. There have been leaks from Select Committees, but they have never involved security. I shall tell the House an anecdote. In my 12 years on the Select Committee on Defence, nothing of a sensitive nature was ever leaked. I was present when the Committee system began in 1979. Initially, the Ministry of Defence was a little suspicious about letting us see things here and there, but we worked our way through that and by 1987 there was nothing that we did not see. On a cross-party basis, we were shown information of the most highly sensitive nature because we had shown ourselves to be trustworthy. The Labour party, in its wisdom, then decided to submit for appointment two members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. An enormous frisson went through the MOD as if things could never be the same again, and its good working relationship with the Committee was going to stop.
  A very senior person in the organisation, who had better remain nameless, asked me what we should do. I said, "You must carry on as before until the trust is broken. That is the only way in which we can proceed, and if we do not a number of members of the Committee will explain vociferously." We went on sharing the most sensitive and highly secret information and there was never any form of leak.
  Some of my hon. Friends may have been nervous about the information that was passed over, and it was not always done with the best grace, but it was passed over and nobody was let down. [Laughter.] I am glad that the jovial reaction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) confirms that. The
  206
  Government might be being unnecessarily fearful about the nature of the information that they will have to share with the members of the committee. I hope that they will put those fears behind them.
  The powers to send for persons and papers and to summon witnesses have been excluded from the Bill because they would make it look too like a Select Committee. The Government had better give the committee the right to make such requests, or there is little point in setting it up. It will lose its credibility before it has began its work. If members of the committee have the power to make such requests, it will cause some chagrin in official circles, but the Government always have the power not to respond. The Government and Ministers may refuse to answer questions.
  There have been celebrated occasions in the Select Committee on Defence when distinguished hon. Members have come before it and refused to answer questions. Whether that did the individual more harm than the Committee is another matter, but it happened and it is everybody's right so to act. The powers of the committee are not something that anybody needs to fear, particularly as I cannot imagine that the committee will very often sit in public. Its public session would probably be confined to once a year when it announced its report and published details of its work. For the rest of the time, it would sit in private, as the Select Committee on Defence did for much of the time. It would ask questions in private, its proceedings would be private and its report to the Prime Minister would be private. There will follow a process with which those who have served on the Defence Committee will be familiar. It will ask how the exclusion of particular information can be considered when it is published elsewhere. The argument will go backwards and forwards before a solution is reached, with the Government always having the final say.
  The fears that I suspect have caused the Government not to give the committee the powers that it needs are groundless. I ask the Ministers to consider the matter in a far more realistic way when the Bill is scrutinised in Committee. While the committee will not be a Select Committee, for the reasons that I described earlier, it will nevertheless function like a Select Committee. The Government do not need to be afraid to give it the powers that no Select Committee has misused to the detriment of national security and secrecy in the 14 years that the Select Committee system has existed. I am certain that the committee would not misuse those powers.
  I hope that the Government will listen to the constructive remarks that have been made in the debate, take them into account and get the committee, which is not a Select Committee, off to the best possible start.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I accept that, despite the historical changes that have taken place in eastern Europe since we debated this matter some five years ago, work clearly remains to be undertaken by the security services. As I have pointed out in previous debates, some of which I initiated, I know of no democracy, let alone dictatorship, that does not find it necessary for such activities to be undertaken in some form, quite apart from what is necessary to deal with the

  207
  continuing curse of terrorism. Whether those activities are carried out by MI5 or what is usually referred to as MI6, they must be undertaken for the defence of this island.
  Many people, particularly Opposition Members, are worried about political bias. Long before the Wright affair, people felt that far too many senior members of the security services were not only right wing but extremely so. The Wright affair showed that the opinions of a few —I hope that it was just a few—were more than extremely right wing. During the 1970s, some officers in the Security Service were outright disloyal, subversive and out of control. To them, the enemy was here in Britain—it was the Labour Government and much of the Labour movement, if not the entire Labour movement. That is why they did tremendous harm to the reputation and work of the Security Service.
  It is not just me who says that. On Second Reading of the Bill in another place, Lord Callaghan said that such officers chose the wrong side of the line between right and wrong and that they damaged the Security Service and democracy. As Prime Minister of the day, he was head of the Security Service, so I presume that he knew precisely what he was talking about.
  Hence the campaign over many years for parliamentary scrutiny of the security services. Every time that this matter has been raised. the standard ministerial response has been that parliamentary scrutiny was unnecessary and that ministerial control of the security services meant that Ministers were answerable to Parliament. We were asked what we were concerned about. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said earlier, when we debated a previous Bill that would have put MI5 on a statutory basis the Government were strenuously opposed to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. They said that it was totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
  It is simple to judge our ability to monitor the Security Service. If we go to the Table Office and try to put down a question about it, we find that we cannot even get to first base. I criticise neither officers of the House responsible for the Table Office nor the other Clerks. Once Ministers have decided that they will not answer questions on the Security Service, future questions are blocked and that is the end of the matter. In the main, Members of Parliament cannot pursue such questions on the Floor of the House, although they can initiate Adjournment debates.
  Allegations of bias come not only from the wretched Wright. What sort of person can he and others like him have been to have been recruited to the security services in the first place and to have remained in a senior position for so long? In addition to the Wright affair, I have mentioned in previous debates how some members of the security services dealt with CND. Although many hon. Members accept that Britain should have nuclear weapons, the current Prime Minister has accepted that it is a perfectly legitimate argument to oppose that. The Security Service, however, pried into the private lives of senior officials involved in CND. I have raised such matters on the Floor of the House and they have been well publicised on other occasions in the press.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and Patricia Hewitt were also targeted. Were they subversive? They must have been considered subversive by those who held positions in the security services at the time. They were targeted because they held senior posts in the then National Council for Civil Liberties. No Conservative Member could say that that was justified.
  Mr. Allason: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the National Council for Civil Liberties was an organisation prescribed by the Labour party at one stage.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. I have not read his books on intelligence matters but I hope that before he writes them he does his research or gets someone else to do it for him. Some 30 or 35 years ago, or more, the National Council for Civil Liberties could have been described as closely allied to the Communist party. Although there may have been a case to argue then, that has not been the case since the mid-1950s as it was not prescribed by the Labour party from the mid-1950s onwards—
  Mr. Allason: I did not say that it was.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My remark about seated interventions applies to both sides of the House.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman puts forward the weakest possible argument. I said that I did not think that any Conservative Member would try to justify prying into the lives of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and of Patricia Hewitt, but the hon. Gentleman tries to justify what the Government are ashamed and embarrassed about. Those two people were targeted by the security services under this Government simply because of their senior positions in the National Council for Civil Liberties. I am pleased that they took their case to the European Court.
  The Scott inquiry will no doubt refer to the role of the security services, but will be far more critical, I am sure, of ministerial conduct, including ministerial responsibility for the security services.
  Much of the emphasis in this debate has been on clause 10. I am particularly unhappy about it because it will not provide the genuine parliamentary scrutiny that is needed. The clause sets up a committee of six members, but what does it add up to? As I said in an intervention, there are unlikely to be any non-Privy Councillors serving on that small committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kinston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) will not mind my saying that, given his defence of the arrangements, he may be one of the few non-Privy Councillors invited to join it. We shall wait and see. Moreover, it will be a joint committee with the House of Lords.
  When the Home Affairs Committee, with a Conservative majority, reported at the end of 1992, it recommended that that scrutiny of the security services should be by the Committee and criticised any joint committee with Members of the House of Lords. It said:
  "We believe that it would not be appropriate for a Committee containing Peers to consider matters of expenditure."
  It then went on to say:
  "We do not believe that there is any general right or need to know what the service does on a day to day basis. But we do believe that establishing a form of parliamentary scrutiny of the service would meet an important public interest and help to protect against any possible future abuse of power."
  Not surprisingly, I agree with those recommendations.
  The Prime Minister will be responsible for appointments to the proposed committee after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister may also decide who will be its chairman. That is most inappropriate. Even on the basis of what is being proposed, the Prime Minister should not have the power to decide who out of the six should be the chairman, but no doubt that will be pursued in Committee. The committee will report not directly to the House but to the Prime Minister,

  209
  who will then decide what should be left out of its report. How on earth can all that be described as genuine parliamentary scrutiny? That is why I remain critical of the Bill.
  Schedule 3 makes it quite clear that information can be withheld from the committee. I can draw many examples from the recent past, such as the arms sales to the criminal regime in Iraq. It could well have been argued that had such a committee existed at the time, there would have been a feeling among Ministers and senior officials that the information was far too sensitive to be given to that committee. Therefore, we should be on our guard about what is contained in schedule 3.
  What we are debating tonight will not end the controversy. Had the committee been anywhere near what was recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, to a large extent the political controversy would be over. What is now being proposed will mean that, in effect, the issue will keep returning.
  When the committee has been set up, those of us who are not satisfied—that will be the case if no major modifications are made in Standing Committee—although we may not be as persistent as previously, will not say simply that, although we did not get what we wanted we achieved a halfway house and that is the end of the issue. We do not believe that it is a halfway house. If the Government believe that a controversy is being concluded as a result of the committee being established as set out in clause 10, they will discover that that is not the case.
  Finally, I raise two other matters. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland mentioned GCHQ. On 25 January, I introduced a ten-minute Bill—no Conservative Member voted against it—to lift the ban on trade union membership at GCHQ. The Government's decision 10 years ago was quite wrong and shameful; it brought into question the loyalty of the people at GCHQ and there was no justification of any such questioning.
  Ministers may have taken the view 10 years ago that the controversy would simmer down after a while, so it is interesting to note that nothing of the kind has happened. The controversy has continued. Some three or four days after my speech, there was a rally in Cheltenham where my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it perfectly clear that a Labour Government would remove that ban. There is no possible justification for what was done on 25 January 1984. The sooner the ban is lifted the better.
  Mr. Robathan: First, let me correct the hon. Gentleman. I was a Teller on that occasion and about 85 Conservative Members voted against his Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the GCHQ dispute in which a large number of working days were lost. The whole purpose of GCHQ—to defend the national interest—was negated because working days were lost. GCHQ might just as well have closed down because of industrial action. If the hon. Gentleman believes in the need for national security to be paramount, he should agree that it was necessary to ban trade unions at GCHQ. Otherwise, we might not have bothered to spend the money on it.
  Mr. Winnick: First, I must apologise to the House. I agree that some Conservative Members voted against my
  210
  Bill. As I kept a note in my diary of the vote, I apologise for misleading the House. My Bill was carried by a majority of 222 to 69. I should have thought that was an overwhelming majority but I am sorry to have given the impression that no Conservative Member voted against it.
  The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) had the courage to speak against it. Although I disagreed with him profoundly, he is to be congratulated on doing what many Conservative Members would not be willing to do. It was interesting to note how few Conservative Members, even those in no way involved in the Government—69 in all voted against my Bill—were willing to go into the Lobby against it.
  As regards the hon. Gentleman's second point, some working days were lost, although the number has been much exaggerated. It was before the Falklands war. On 25 January, I quoted the then Director General of GCHQ congratulating every single employee on the excellent work undertaken during the Falklands war. That was after the days had been lost as a result of the industrial dispute.
  The trade unions have gone out of their way to offer every possible compromise in an attempt to get the ban lifted. Had the Government shown any genuine willingness to agree to any such compromise, agreement could have been reached by the end of last year. I hope not only that we will try to improve the Bill in Committee but that if no major amendment is carried and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition is invited or consulted by the Prime Minister, he will not simply comply with the Prime Minister's request, be it over names or other matters.
  As regards calling for papers, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has a perfect and legitimate parliamentary right to pursue with the Prime Minister, if the Bill becomes law as it is, matters that have occupied the attention today of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I wish that I could conclude by saying that while I am not entirely happy with the Bill, it is a happy compromise. I cannot draw that conclusion, hence the controversy will continue until we establish the same adequate form of parliamentary scrutiny that has been established in so many other western democracies.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: GCHQ is the wartime successor to the Government code and cipher school, and it has had a long and honourable tradition dating back to the second world war. Certainly Eisenhower judged that the second world war had probably been reduced in length by a year, and many tens of thousands of lives were saved as a result of the work carried out at Bletchley Park. The work undertaken there remained secret until 1974 and the publication of "The ULTRA Secret". In the post-war era, there has been only one case of hostile penetration, and that was the case of Geoffrey Prime.
  GCHQ is the jewel in the crown of the British intelligence establishment. I am disappointed that their Lordships were so preoccupied about the union ban. We should be clear that the 1984 ban was not imposed by the Government; it was requested by the director-general of GCHQ. Some 10,000 days were lost in total, and that was during a critical time for Britain—the imposition of martial law in Poland and the invasion of Afghanistan.

  211
  The Secret Intelligence Service, on the other hand, has not been so successful, and has sometimes been described, perhaps unfairly, as the second oldest profession.
  When one is working at the coal face, hostile penetration is almost inevitable. We have the cases of Kim Philby, George Blake, John Cairncross, Dick Ellis and the unnamed victims of the mole hunts in the 1970s. All those cases are occupational hazards of secret intelligence.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has just given us a catalogue of traitors to Britain. How many of them were GCHQ trade unionists?
  Mr. Allason: I have no idea. I have described only one case of hostile penetration of GCHQ—the case of Geoffrey Prime. It has been argued that the information that he betrayed over a long period was probably more damaging than anything that was betrayed by the other individuals in the secret service.
  Let us not suppose for one moment that the threat of espionage has come to an end. When right hon. and hon. Members open their newspapers tomorrow, they will read about an espionage case in the United States that has been brewing for some weeks and which is regarded as one of the most serious Russian intelligence service penetrations of the American intelligence establishment. The fact is that the cloaks and daggers were not put away at the end of the cold war.
  There is a continuing role for the SIS and GCHQ. One sometimes wonders how one can judge whether one is getting value for money from an intelligence agency, because Ministers invariably ask the director-general of the Security Service and the chief of the SIS how they are doing, and are told, "We are doing tremendously well. We are doing so well that we cannot tell you all the details, because, quite frankly, you do not want to know them. But, yes, you are getting value for money."
  I suggest that there are ways in which one can judge the performance of a security or intelligence agency. A classic way is by the receipt of defectors. The SIS has a long and impressive record of receipt of Soviet defectors, particulary during the latter part of the cold war. If an intelligence agency is not trusted, it is unlikely to receive defectors. That one criterion is useful.
  In the past 20 years, we have received Vladimir Kuzichkin, Ilya Dzhirkvelov, Oleg Lyalin, Vladimir Rezun and, in 1985, Oleg Gordievsky. Whatever one says about the bad old years, if one can run an agent for between 12 and 14 years—up until Oleg Gordievsky's defection in 1985—that says a tremendous amount about that agency. It means that it can keep a secret for that length of time. It means that, operationally, it can run an agent for that length of time. All that is to the credit of the intelligence agency and goes a long way to demonstrating its integrity.
  The principal role of an intelligence agency is to avoid being taken by surprise. That is a problem for all great nations. There have been appalling examples of nations being taken by surprise, the classic being Pearl Harbour. Israel is often credited with having a tremendously impressive intelligence service, but it does not deserve that reputation. The 1973 Yom Kippur conflict is the classic textbook example of how a nation can be taken completely by surprise. The Americans were taken by surprise in Korea, and by the Tet offensive in Vietnam. The collapse of the Soviet bloc was predicted by nobody, least of all by the Central Intelligence Agency.
  212
  We were taken by surprise in the Gulf war. No amount of overhead surveillance or satellite system can penetrate the thoughts of Saddam Hussein or get close to his cabinet and discover his intentions. We were taken by surprise there in a way that we were not a decade or so earlier when troops and HMS Bulwark were deployed in the Gulf to prevent and deter aggression.
  We were taken by surprise in exactly the same way during the Falklands crisis. We had few assets in south America.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says that we were taken by surprise in the Falklands. Is that strictly true? Many people realise that the wrong signals were being sent to Argentina. Surely the problem was more or less the stupidity of the Government rather than being taken by surprise.
  Mr. Allason: I would concede that the scrapping of HMS Endurance was one of the most appalling decisions. It was misunderstood by the Argentines.
  It is worth explaining one of the reasons for the Falklands conflict and the heavy reliance on GCHQ as opposed to the SIS. On that occasion, GCHQ assured the Joint Intelligence Committee that it would be able to give a considerable lead time for any planned amphibious landing on the Falklands, because it was intercepting and reading the signals of one unit—an amphibious commando unit—stationed on the Andes, overlooking the Chilean frontier.
  It was judged that that unit, which was the only one that had been trained in amphibious landing by the Americans at Fort Bragg, was the one unit that would be likely to be deployed against the Falklands. On that occasion, GCHQ gave that assurance to the Joint Intelligence Committee.
  But, of course, during and even after the landing at Port Stanley, only conscripts were used, and the unit remained in its position on top of the Andes throughout the conflict. So, by a reliance on technical sources of intelligence, one can disadvantage the human sources. That is where the SIS comes in. That is one of the classic reasons why intelligence is so enormously important.
  The question for the House is whether the Bill will help the services to be more effective and efficient. Will it mean more financial support for the organisations that are strapped for cash at the very time when the defence intelligence staff is being chopped?
  It is my belief that this is an opportunity for the House to give full support to the SIS and GCHQ, because the fact is that this is the first time, as far as I know, that there have been compulsory redundancies in the SIS. It is bad for morale and bad for this country. If we are intent on dismantling our armed services at the rate we are, it is all the more important that we should have an effective trip wire overseas to alert the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Cabinet, so that the appropriate decisions can be made in time.
  I hope that one of the messages that the House will give to the SIS and GCHQ is that they are doing an extremely important job and that the resources will be available to monitor the kind of disruption that has taken place in eastern Europe, the activity of the Islamic fundamentalists right across the continent of north Africa, the near east and middle east, and to monitor our own interests in central America and the Falklands, and even in the South African continent.

  213
  The truth is that the CIA pays only lip service to oversight. It is an unwieldy and difficult system in the United States. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own separate committees. They are trusted, but only because they have to be.
  It is worth examining why Congress introduced oversight in the first place. It was as a result of the appalling embarrassments and misconduct that were exposed by the Pope and the Church committees. I would not want the American example to be followed. There is no reason to in this country.
  As for the Canadian model, it is worth pointing out that there is no external intelligence collection service in Canada. There is, however, an effective security agency —the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. If the Minister wants to look at a model of how a report about an intelligence agency can be published annually without giving away secrets, but with some sanitised case histories that will educate the public and politicians, I would recommend that document as good reading matter.
  There have not been any significant leaks from the oversight committee in Canada, or, for that matter, from those in the United States. There has been one resignation from one of the committees in the United States because of the premature release of a report. Apart from one allegation of one CIA asset being lost in the old Soviet bloc, it is widely believed that the trust has been reciprocated and well earned.
  Back in 1989, when we debated what was then the Security Service Bill, we were told that the reason for the Bill was the fact that "it was about time". We now recognise, however, that the real motive was to satisfy the European Court. I do not know the precise motive behind this Bill; perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will explain when he winds up. I do not know whether there is any really compelling reason for its introduction
  The fact is that there have been no scandals to act as a catalyst. There have been no murders; there are no dead bodies hidden away. There has simply been a lengthy police investigation of the Hilda Murrell case, after which the police clearly concluded that the Security Service had played no part in it. People on the fringes are making a good deal of mischief. Gary Murray—who served as a dog handler in the RAF police—wrote a long and mischievous book about the Hilda Murrell case, and made a series of other allegations about the Security Service. That man operates in the world of fantasy.
  This country has a proud and honourable record of intelligence gathering. That is because there has been considerable ministerial oversight. It was introduced at quite a late stage in the 1940s, when a Foreign Office adviser was attached to the Secret Intelligence Service. No sensitive operation was undertaken without the consent of that adviser—who was not an SIS career officer, but someone seconded to the SIS on a temporary basis.
  The one occasion on which something went wrong occurred in 1956, and involved the Buster Crabb case. Curiously enough, the system appeared to work well; but on the morning that the Foreign Office adviser received a telephone call asking for authorisation to send a diver under the Russian cruiser the Ordjonikidze in Portsmouth
  214
  harbour, his father had died. When he received the call, a short time later, he was in no condition to examine the case in detail.
  The Prime Minister was severely embarrassed, and considerable effort was made to ensure that there would never again be a lack of political control. Since 1956—when the director-general of the Security Service was imposed on the SIS to prevent any recurrence of what was described as misconduct—virtually all operations of that kind have involved a large element of ministerial approval.
  Evidence about the Matrix Churchill case that has surfaced so far—during the trial of Paul Henderson, and at the Scott inquiry—clearly shows that both the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service have conducted themselves in an exemplary fashion. I am not sure that I can say the same of the Ministers who signed the public interest immunity certificates, but this may not be the appropriate time and place to refer to that aspect; Lord Justice Scott is bound to pursue it over the next six weeks.
  My concern about the Bill relates to the inclusion of the Security Service, which—by its very nature—is heavily involved in political judgments. About two thirds of its operations now take place in anti-terrorism and—because it is now so firmly integrated in the criminal justice system —I wonder whether it might more appropriately be subject to the scrutiny of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and perhaps an annual visit.
  I am worried about the relationship between intelligence and security agencies—and the officers responsible for collecting the information—and the criminal justice system. Members of the special and counter-terrorist branches are all police officers; they all hold warrant cards, and they have all given evidence in the courts at one time or another.
  I find it an unattractive proposition for this country's courts to be presented with evidence by Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C from behind screens. That is not part of our criminal justice system, and it is not understood abroad: it represents a propaganda coup for the Provisional IRA.
  Mr. Rogers: What did the hon. Gentleman mean when he said that operatives were heavily involved in political judgments? Earlier in the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that the secret services did not "invent their own agenda". Surely there is a conflict between what the hon. Gentleman said and what the Foreign Secretary said.
  Mr. Allason: No, there is not. One of the responsibilities of the Security Service under the 1989 Act is counter-subversion; one definition of counter-subversion was given in the other place, and another—lengthy—definition was given by the present Foreign Secretary, then Home Secretary, during the passage of that Act.
  There are bound to be political judgments about whether a political organisation is determined to undermine parliamentary democracy, but they are political only to that extent. Targeting is a matter for the directorate of the Security Service and the Joint Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. Rogers: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, who demonstrates considerable knowledge of these matters. Perhaps he can pass that knowledge on to the House, however. Is he saying that part of the function of the secret service is to subvert political parties in this country? That is what it sounded like. I know that my

  215
  Welsh dialect may be slightly different from the dialect of Torbay; but the hon. Gentleman did say that the service was involved in subversion, and made political judgments in relation to political parties.
  Mr. Allason: With respect, I referred the hon. Gentleman to the 1989 Act, under which counter-subversion is one of the responsibilities of the security service.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not mean to nitpick, but the Act does not use the term "counter-subversion"—although I accept that the remit involved can be interpreted in a number of ways. One of the purposes of the service is to prevent the undermining of parliamentary democracy
  "by political, industrial or violent means."
  That tallies with the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers): the service is precluded from interfering in the political process.
  Mr. Allason: The Security Service does not make political judgments, except to the extent that it must deal with counter-subversion. The definition of "subversion" is the definition in the 1989 Act. To that extent, the service is responsible for counter-subversion—for countering the undermining of parliamentary democracy by non-parliamentary means.
  According to my interpretation of the Bill, the tribunal will be, in effect, a permanent security commission. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will explain whether the Security Commission will continue to exist. At present, it is composed of a panel, some of whose members can be called upon to conduct investigations.
  Will the commission still be needed, or will the tribunal take over its role? Certainly, the panel has been made up of the great and the good, but not one of its members has a day of intelligence experience. In the past, the membership has been derided in the intelligence community as a stable door operation; it does not carry much weight. If the right people are selected for the tribunal, however, I believe that they will have a powerful role to play.
  I would refer anyone who has any doubts about the way in which the Security Commission can be misled, to the Bettaney report, in which, in order to protect Oleg Gordievsky, who was a current source, the Security Commission completely misled the public about the tips that had led to Michael Bettaney.
  I must also express some concern about the term "taking in washing", which in effect is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described when he told the anecdote about an SIS officer being deployed abroad on a drugs surveillance operation. That causes some concern, because there is a national drugs intelligence unit arid its sole function surely is to undertake and to collect intelligence of that type.
  There are also implications for the criminal justice system if SIS personnel are to be deployed abroad and to supply information that will be used in the prosecution. Are those individuals to appear in court? Will they be called as witnesses and, if so, under what circumstances?
  I very much hope that the role of the commissioner will be a strong one. I hope that he will not be governed by a statutory deadline of the type that has handicapped the security commissioner in the 1989 Act. I said in an intervention that he declines to participate in the investigation of any case initiated before 10 December 1989. That precludes his investigating a very large number
  216
  of complaints. I see no reason why the new commissioner should not be able to use his discretion and to investigate cases about which a file has started before the Bill goes on to the statute book.
  I draw the attention of the House to a number of the damaging allegations that were mentioned earlier. I do not think that in Committee we should once again hear some of the tired old allegations that have been disproved elsewhere, that have been the subject of police investigations or, in the case of the allegations that Special Air Services officers have been training the Khmer Rouge, that have gone through the libel courts.
  John Pilger has made an apology for those claims, yet one still hears allegations that the Security Service murdered Hilda Morrell, and we still hear that the Walter Mittys, such as Colin Wallace, are making serious allegations that undermine the morale of the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service.
  I very much hope that the SIS will take the tribunal as an opportunity to ensure that there is a proper system to allow former—and current—members of those organisations to get proper clearance to be able to write their books. I hold no brief for the Peter Wrights of this world, but it is preposterous for disaffected former members of the service and others—very distinguished former members of the service—to be obliged to undergo threats from the Cabinet Office, to undergo a variety of lawsuits initiated by the Treasury Solicitor, and other experiences which are unnecessary and which cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money.
  I suggest that the tribunal should have the power to authorise individual officers to be able to make the type of non-damaging disclosures that are perfectly sensible and are allowed in the United States, Canada and elsewhere.
  The Bill is a pretty good one. I regret that the Security Service is included in it, but I conclude by expressing the hope that the Bill will proceed in Committee, and that it will be a Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I waited until the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) finished because I have no desire to detain the House. There has come into my possession a press release, which was issued by an organisation that describes itself as a political pressure group. What disturbs me about that press release is that it attacks Members of the House, especially members of the shadow Cabinet, and the way in which they voted last night, and it gives two contact numbers, one of a Mr. Ben Lucas, the chair of the organisation, with a House of Commons telephone number, and the other of a Mrs. Cathy Ashley, a 219 number, which is also a House of Commons number. If those people are employees of the House or hon. Members, they should not be using the facilities of the House to attack Members of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Member has made a combination of allegations. The first is a matter of privilege and I should be most grateful, if he feels that privilege is involved, if he would write formally to Madam Speaker.
  As to the other matter in relation to the use of the House's facilities, the rules are quite clear. The authorities of the House will have recorded what the hon. Gentleman has said and I imagine that action will follow. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning it.
  8.15 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I shall speak in support of the Bill in principle. I will not take a walk down memory lane of the murky mystery of spy novels and people who may or may not have been involved in the security services at one time or another throughout the history of time.
  Opposition Members support the Bill in principle for a number of reasons, not least of which is that we believe very much in more open government. It is especially important given the record of the Government, who have consistently refused or avoided answering questions in Parliament on so many matters.
  One of my worries about the Bill, however, is the role that the Prime Minister has in appointing the committee, given that he, especially, seems to be least open to scrutiny on so many occasions. Opposition Members, on the other hand, have advocated openness and scrutiny consistently for a considerable time. It is important that security services are put on a statutory basis.
  I shall speak briefly about some of my reservations about the Bill as it stands. A number of hon. Members have referred to the Home Affairs Select Committee report; the Committee had considered systems abroad in which scrutiny took place. It seemed to find no reason why parliamentary scrutiny should not be extended in this country. I believe that we should play especially close attention to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, whose members do not come to their decisions lightly, but have taken some time and have gone into some detail in doing so. The report says:
  "it seems to us that the examples from abroad demonstrate that there are a number of ways in which parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service in the United Kingdom might be improved".
  The House should seriously endorse that view.
  The new committee should have the power to make its annual report on the way in which it carries out its duties, not to the Prime Minister, but to Parliament. Parliament is the sovereign body. It is to Parliament that any committee of the House, in whatever form, should report and I believe that that is a flaw in the Bill as it stands.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned the membership of the committee. In my view, the committee has unnecessarily few members. I very much endorsed a number of the comments made by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) when he said that the committee was not a Select Committee, but would have to take on many of the attributes of a Select Committee; for example, it should be able to call in evidence, call in individuals, ask for documents, according to its own will, setting its own agenda and not according to the Security Service or under some aegis of the Prime Minister. Why is the report of the committee to be presented first to the Prime Minister, not to the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
  The number of members of the committee worries us for a number of reasons. There are to be only six members, which is very few. There may be good reasons for that, such as keeping membership tight, but, given the breadth of the work to be done, I wonder whether six will be sufficient to scrutinise the services.
  I found it fascinating that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) felt that the committee members should be House of Commons men. I am not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. I am not suggesting for one minute that my name should be put forward, but there are
  218
  a number of hon. Ladies of all parties who would do more than a good job in scrutinising the security services. If they wish to be considered, I hope that they will be.
  The committee will be discussing policy, expenditure and the management of the security services. A number of hon. Members have referred to the serious problem of the dividing line between policy and operation. We should like an assurance that there will not be constant attempts to stop the committee discussing policy on the ground that it is, in fact, operational. There must be sufficient flexibility to allow the committee to get on with its work without having to look over its shoulder and hearing the Prime Minister, the heads of the security services or someone else saying that it cannot discuss a particular issue because it is operational.
  I have already referred to the disclosure of information to the committee. It is nonsensical for any committee of the House, of whatever standing, not to be able to decide of its own volition what documents it wants to see, which people it wishes to question and how it wishes to formulate its report. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire said, all other Select Committees may do so. Although the committee will not be a Select Committee, it will have to work on very similar lines.
  I am surprised that the commissioner will not report to Parliament at least at the same time as he or she reports to the Prime Minister. To illustrate my point, I use as a parallel, although I know that it is not on all fours, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of which I am a member. The Commissioner comes to the Committee week in, week out, to deliver his report, respond to our questions and raise issues that he believes are of great concern in the administration of Parliament. I should have thought that the commissioner proposed under the Bill would be able to do something similar in reporting directly to the committee.
  There is an omission from the Bill which my colleagues and I believe is both tragic and shameful. I refer, of course, to the reinstatement of trade unionism at GCHQ. The Prime Minister has said that he is prepared to talk to trade unions and various organisations, but, despite the fact that they have bent over backward to accommodate his concerns and those of the Government in general, he still maintains firmly that there is to be no trade unionism at GCHQ.
  It is nothing short of a scandal that the workers to whom the Secretary of State today rightly paid fulsome tribute should be denied their basic right. Not one member of the Government has yet come up with a serious reason why GCHQ workers should not be members of a trade union.
  It is a matter of the utmost shame for the Government and, in particular, for the Prime Minister that, after 10 years, they are still incapable of accepting that people can be trade unionists while being good patriots and professionals and able to get on with the work that the Government ask of them. You can be assured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my colleagues and I will be pressing that issue in Committee and beyond until those trade union rights are re-established.
  The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) was concerned that the Bill was merely a first step. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, it is a step and there are more aspects of the issue still to he developed. We have not completed the circle and there

  219
  is still much more work to be done. The Bill is to be welcomed, although it is by no means perfect and much could still be added.
  Finally, I ask the Minister to define the phrase "serious crimes". We might understand it to mean terrorism and the international trafficking of drugs among other things, but I should prefer it if the Bill contained something closer to a proper definition, especially in view of what is happening in relation to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. We should know exactly whom we are targeting under the phrase "serious crimes".
  Although I welcome the Bill as a first step, I regret the tragic fact that it does not reinstate the fundamental right of trade unionism for people who work on our behalf at GCHQ.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary presented the Bill as a continuum of a process enacted under the Security Service Act 1989 and reinforced by the Official Secrets Act 1989.
  The House will recall that the two Acts were introduced because of episodes in our distant past. In fact, a Lord Justice advised the nation through a court judgment that we would be—I am quoting from memory—naive to suppose that a little bugging and burglary did not take place. There could be no stronger signal from the judicial process to reinforce the fact that there had been a massive breach of a concept that is important to the House arid to constitutional and democratic government—the rule of law. The judge was, of course, signifying that, under prerogative power, the security services were breaking the legislated law of the land—statute—and that that was intolerable. I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends who were then in government moved to regularise the position and subsequently passed the Security Service Act 1989.
  I put the Bill in context because it is inconceivable that, when one is dealing with the range of the necessary defence of the nation, one does not have some form of structure that can attest to the public at large that the intelligence services are run ethically in accordance with certain basic principles.
  The entire House accepts the thrust of the Bill, but I wish to explain why I think that the powers of the House and the regard in which the nation is held in the world have diminished. Executive government has an incessant need to hold the formulation of all policies and all Bills entirely unto itself. There has been no discussion with the wider and informed public about what routes we should have taken to secure the objectives that the House believes to be appropriate.
  In Canada, of course, there was the McDonald commission, and even in the United States before the Church commission there was Vice-President Rockefeller's report to the then President Ford. There have also been commissions of inquiry in Australia and New Zealand.
  I say all that because there has been no examination of what the security services are about, what are the guiding principles that inform their operations and their work, and what are our requirements. That is terribly important, because we are among the most important servants of the state for defending the integrity of our institutions.
  220
  When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as Home Secretary, introduced his original Security Service Bill, I argued—rightly, I believe—that the remit conferred on the security services was so wide that it covered almost everything. But I was pleased, and I still am, that one of the aspects of the remit, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), was the recognition that one of the most important functions was to protect us from the undermining of parliamentary democracy. That is a profound principle.
  If we ask ourselves what is the purpose of all those services, we must reply that it is to protect our democracy —the democratic United Kingdom of Great Britain. That is why the enunciation of principles and the manner in which we ensure that the guardians themselves are watched are important to us. I have tried to reflect on what those principles are. They have been adumbrated in other countries, and I have tried to suggest that the McDonald commission was a good enough starting point for those who, within the machinery itself, decided how to approach the problem.
  I have always found it difficult to comprehend why there is such an extraordinary diffidence on the part of Ministers regarding the nature of that vital service. I do not believe that any Army Minister has the slightest compunction about following through the operational details and techniques of the armed forces. Yet, both now and in the past, we have heard Minister after Minister displaying an extraordinary attitude towards the security services. Indeed, Lord Callaghan said on television that there were many things that he would not want to know about, and did not think it appropriate to know about.
  Two principles have emerged from my remarks. First, I have mentioned the Government's attention to the concept of the rule of law. Historically, we cannot have a rule of law if people are acting under prerogative powers in defiance of the legislated or statute power in the land. The Government have therefore moved to bring activities within the rule of law. I shall consider that aspect in a moment.
  There is another principle underlying a democracy—surely the basic principle, the very assertion of which is now being examined at great length. I advise my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members to read the evidence from day 63 of the Scott inquiry, given by Sir Robin Butler. That is not only riveting but deeply disturbing. Sir Robin discussed what responsible, or accountable, government meant. I cannot trace through the Bill where there is an affirmation of that, and I wonder to myself. We passed the Security Service Act, and now we are considering the Intelligence Services Bill. We see common features and commmon words across the two pieces of legislation—for instance, the concept of warrants, which is essential for bringing the activity within the rule of law.
  We must remember that there is no judicial interference in any of the actions in that process. Unless there is a mistake, whereby the Prime Minister determines to set up an inquiry such as that of Lord Justice Scott, we know absolutely nothing of what is happening on our behalf, at our behest and at our expense.
  Those principles are of profound importance. The rule of law required us to put matters on a statutory basis; that is enormously important. A warrant issued by a Secretary of State—from the Home Office, for instance—makes lawful that which would otherwise be unlawful, without reference to any court. Most other societies have always

  221
  required judicial intervention in that process. For instance, a warrant is sought from a justice or from a judge. That can be done in a secure way, and it is done to show that the Security Service is not merely the creature and the self-serving of executive government. As with the armed forces, it should be at the service of the whole nation. That is why we have to be so careful. In the Bill, in legislated form, we are providing a continuation of the process of making lawful that which would otherwise be unlawful. That point ought to be set up on high. We believe that there should be absolute attention to the rule of law.
  I try to trace through who is actually accountable for the service. Clearly it is not the commissioner; clearly it is not the tribunal; clearly it is not what is now called, in that elegant phrase, a committee of parliamentarians. We must search further. Normally in our system of accountable government we expect a Minister who is both responsible and accountable to be accountable to the House of Commons. But in this extraordinary democratic society of ours we have always accepted that it is inappropriate to speak on security matters. That was so until 1989, and the legacy of that feeling still lingers over the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister will remember that in the defence of that secrecy the present Secretary of State for Education, who was then Minister of State, Home Office, made some remarks that were funny at the time, but which now look nothing but hysterical and deeply shaming. I am trying to trace through who is responsible for the service. There are Ministers who say, "There are some matters that I do not wish to know about." There is no traced line that is clear and certain showing us who is responsible for the efficiency and efficacy of the service, and for the matching of warrants to the proportionate needs.
  Why am I concerned about that? I am concerned because it touches on the most intimate freedoms of a free society. The ability to burgle my house or to tap my telephone is intrusive at the grandest levels, yet rightly we recognise that there are circumstances in which it is necessary for the well-being of us all that the ordinary decencies and proprieties of democratic government under a rule of law are not appropriate. Therefore, we must be assured that from within the wall of secrecy, as it is called today—the circle of secrecy was the term that we used more vigorously five years ago—someone can attest to the House and to the wider nation that what is being done is all appropriate.
  After all, let us be frank about the fact that no committee would be being set up unless there were an unease within the House and within a broader public context. I do not know whether the scandals that we were led to enjoy in the early 1980s, and certainly in the Wright period of the early 1970s, were merited, but they left an unease. Lord Merlyn-Rees, for example, felt that he was the victim of over-enthusiastic or perverse military intelligence operatives. That should make us extremely conscious. I notice that that is perhaps why we have the prevention of subversion of parliamentary democracy as one of the objectives of the Security Service.
  I am trying to pluck out the truth about where and who is the person who can attest to us and say with authority, "We have stood and looked and we can show—or rather, say; you must trust us on that basis—that this is
  222
  appropriately managed, and does not overly intrude into the lives of citizens, that the warrant issued to make lawful that which would otherwise be unlawful was appropriately issued in respect of the threat identified in it."
  As I have said, the remit covered by the two pieces of legislation is so wide that it could encompass almost anything that a Government wished to do, if it were malign. There is no question about that. It is extraordinary that we do not attempt to define the essence of national security. Other societies have tried to do that, and there is a reasonable argument that it may be a moving target, because the needs of a society change from generation to generation.
  Mr. Rogers: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest, but, unless I am misunderstanding him, he is giving the impression that the issuing of a warrant legitimises that which otherwise would not be legitimate, and then implying that attached to the issuing of a warrant is some sort of judicial intervention. However, the Bill specifically says that the warrant is issued by the Government, through the Government's agent, the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Shepherd: If I conveyed that impression, I was wrong to do so. I do not believe that I did. I was saying that the issuing of a warrant makes lawful that which would be otherwise unlawful under the statute law of the country. As there is no judicial review of that—it is specifically excluded—it is a matter of the greatest sensitivity and why we need attestation that the process is conducted appropriately by those outside the services themselves and not by those so closely allied to the Executive that it may undermine the confidence of the public. I think that, because of the anxiety and the question of public confidence, there has been a move towards a committee of parliamentarians. I shall comment on that committee later.
  Mr. Rogers: To follow that argument, the Secretary of State would have to authorise the release of documents to the committee. If the committee is to be the overseeing body, but cannot oversee operational matters—the issuing of a warrant is obviously directly related to an operational matter—there is no purview in any way of the process that the hon. Gentleman has outlined so clearly. The committee of the House, regardless of how it is set up and what it would do, would never be able to call for the reasons for the issuing of a warrant. Perhaps it never should. I am not arguing that it should, because that is an operational matter, but it would be wrong to give the impression that the committee would have the right to do it.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has tried to follow what I am saying, because I do no think that we are at odds. I am considering the reasoning behind why we construct Bills and why society at large tries to address some of those points. I do not think that the Bill addresses some of those points, as I shall say. The sensitivity of the issuing of a warrant, which makes that which would otherwise be unlawful lawful and without judicial review, is therefore a matter of great importance and of great reflection for a democratic society.
  Therefore, we need the means by which we can attest. The Bill does not meet that need at all and there is a respectable body of thought that feels that it is merely a palliative to reassure the public and hon. Members that the matters are being considered.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: On the operation of warrants, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I find it extremely worrying that we have been told by Ministers in the Scott inquiry that they have no option but to sign warrants whatever they contain—
  Mr. Mates: No, they have not said that.
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, they have said that and they have said that they use the excuse that it is in the public interest or in the interests of national security. They are thus not accountable to the House or, presumably, to the committees for signing those warrants. Even worse, those warrants do not necessarily relate to one person, but can be a general warrant which, once a Minister has signed it, the security services may relate to many people. Is not that a worrying aspect of the operation of warrants?
  Mr. Shepherd: Of course it is worrying. We are labouring a point that I was making as an indication of why we are considering the issue and why there are reasons to be not so glad-handed about the matter, as perhaps the House of Lords conveyed. The cross-bench, bipartisan approach also leads one to believe that the matter is settled. I accept what the Secretary of State said. It is a stepped approach and I do not think that the way in which the committee will be constructed will satisfy that basic test.
  I was going to adumbrate, if I may, some of the principles involved in the Bill. First, I shall quote the Rockefeller report to President Ford about the balance, which is not evident in most of what has been said, certainly not today and certainly not in the Lords, and which is the essence of concerns to many people. The report states:
  "While it is vital that security requirements be met",
  with which the House absolutely agrees,
  "it is equally important that intelligence activity be conducted without impairing our democratic institutions and fundamental freedoms".
  I suggest that that is a principle which should inform all such matters. It is the most difficult balance to strike, which I accept. The Executive has real difficulty in trying to balance the needs, which often seem of the absolute imperative, for defence and security against those of the rights of a democracy. If we employ such draconian measures, as is possible and as has been alleged in the past, we impair the democracy.
  That is why the debate is tremendously important; the essence of it concerns our freedoms, our liberties, our rule of law and the accountability of Ministers. In reconciling the security of the United Kingdom with the requirements of democracy, we should emphasise that we hold certain things to be absolutely fundamental to our understanding of democracy: first, responsible or accountable government; secondly, the rule of law; and, thirdly, an aspect of which we have not heard anything this afternoon, but which is important and over which we fought in the Official Secrets Act 1989, the right to lawful dissent. That is an essential and basic requirement of our democracy. It is not in the Security Service Act 1989. No allusion is made to it in the Bill. It is important that, in setting out the statutes relating to the conduct of matters which must be of a secret nature, there must be, in a declaratory forma an explanation of the principles on which we operate.
  On the question of responsible government, I again refer to day 63 of Lord Scott's inquiry where there was a rehearsal of those arguments that I held dear and had learned from Wade and Phillips and Ivor Jennings among
  224
  others, about responsible and accountable government. It means that a Minister must, if he wishes, know absolutely everything that is happening—the details of any operation if necessary—because he is accountable to the House. It does not mean that he will tell us the details of that operation, but anything of a political sensitivity must be by some mechanism instantly referred to him. That is one of the conditions that I am setting out as necessary. It does not seem to be accepted on the Floor of the House and it is certainly not accepted in the Lords.
  Ministers are also proud to declare that certain things are either too secret or too important or too tendentious for them to wish to know. They may endanger the security of an act by the security or intelligence services. That self-abnegation reduces accountable government to a nonsense. If one is to have accountable government, Ministers must know everything that is happening if they wish. The principle is that they should know everything that is sensitive and likely to beg questions relating to the greatest sensitivities of our personal freedoms in this democracy.
  That principle is held at arm's length and is not yet regarded by the House. I do not understand why that is, if we examine our function here to hold Ministers to account. Those Ministers control and are responsible and accountable for a service that may move into the most important facets of our liberties, freedoms and privacy. That is not outside the circle of secrecy or telling the public or even hon. Members what an operation is, what its nature is or about its details. There is no possibility of a leak.
  I was trying to identify what I understood by responsible government. Lord Scott will give us another view of what it means, by the non-responsibility of Ministers for so much of what they have done over recent years.
  The rule of law as the other principle is important because until the Security Service Act, unlawful acts took place. It is as simple as that. I have given the expression of a judge and we know why we had to address that issue. The McDonald commission report said:
  "Responsible Government must mean that responsible Ministers can know about all the practices and policies of security agencies and about any of their operations which raise policy or legal issues. The security system must be an open book to responsible Ministers and to the Prime Minister. No pages in that book should be sealed because security officials think they contain information too sensitive for Ministers' or Prime Ministers' eyes or ears. Responsible Ministers cannot be expected to know everything a security agency does but they can and must be expected to know the policies governing the operations of the security agency and to establish procedures for ensuring that operations raising difficult policy issues are brought to their attention."
  On the rule of law, the McDonald commission says:
  "Nor is the rule of law a principle that should be compromised for the sake of national security. Government agencies, including a security service, should not pick and choose which laws they will obey. We do not accept the idea that there are some 'minor', regulatory, laws which security agencies should be free to ignore when they stand in the way of security investigations. There may well be a need to change the laws so that exemptions are provided for members of a security agency or police force, but it is not for security agencies, or police forces, or even for the Ministers responsible for these agencies, to decide which laws apply to them and which do not. Under the rule of law in our system of government, the legislators … determine general rules of law, and disputes about the applications of the laws to particular cases are decided ultimately by the judges and juries."
  We have ruled out the judges and juries element, so we are dependent on Ministers.

  225
  Under the construction of an umbrella, as we got in these two Acts, we have learnt—the Minister of State was kind enough to tell me yesterday—that the commissioner will be the same commissioner for both services and GCHQ. Similarly, the members of the tribunal will be the same for the security services, GCHQ and the intelligence services. The committee of parliamentarians which the Government envisage will also have common responsibilities across the services. I welcome that. It is cohesive. There is an understanding that this is an intelligent way in which a body of knowledge and facts grows.
  I shall mention in passing the right to lawful dissent. I should like to see that emphasised—it should be included in security services legislation. I do not understand why the legislation was not consolidated so that we had a clearer expression of what we wanted.
  As I said, liberal democracies face a unique challenge in maintaining security of the state. The challenge is to secure democracy against its internal and external enemies without destroying democracy in the process. It follows the requirement that all security measures must be authorised or provided by law. In a sense, the Government's Bill meets that requirement. We must ensure that the investigation of subversive activity does not interfere with the freedoms of political dissent and association which are essential to a free society.
  What we have is a structural edifice of law—some institutional arrangements and administrative practices. By and large, we know nothing about the administrative practices, because they are not within the public view. The tribunal and its functions and workings are not subject to judicial review and the commissioner is not subject to judicial review. Therefore, the practice must be within the circle of secrecy.
  The test that I make is how well we reconcile the requirements of security with the requirements of democracy. That can be done within a parliamentary system—other countries have done it. The Government have not invited the views of hon. Members and the wider public on the construction of this structure, and there is no commission to look at the objectives that we should have. Therefore, this Bill undermines the integrity of these systems.
  By and large, the Bill has the support of both Chambers. But what is this committee of parliamentarians? It is extraordinary. We have been told that its members will be notified people. That means that anything that they say is an absolute offence when it relates to the security services or matters that come into their knowledge. I was always happy that they should be Privy Councillors because it reinforced the concept of the circle of secrecy. I am well aware that many hon. Members are nervous that matters that are vital to the state's security could in some way slip out.
  We must still reconcile how we can have an account from within that is independent of the Executive, the commissioners and the tribunal, but can attest to us that this is appropriate and proper. That is why any committee that is set up will meet the circle of secrecy, whether through the Privy Councillorship route or not. We know that members of the committee will be notified as well. That degree of trust is not extended to many members of the services.
  226
  We talk constantly as though we will leak information, or that those members who are designated and perhaps Privy Councillors who are looking at this will do so. However, they are denied the means to test whether the action taken or the operation was historically appropriate and effectively run. It is a self-denying ordinance that is remarkable in a democracy. The deference that is extended by Ministers and hon. Members of the House to the services for our freedom is extraordinary. In the end, it will be self-defeating. We should have a little more courage about these matters. These are decent and honourable citizens who struggle to do their best by their duty and towards their country. We should respect that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made an important point about publication, whether it is by "russet-coated" gentlemen or those "with little eyes". Nicholas Elliott has given a valuable oversight about the value of those services. He lists at the back of his very short book—I do not mean to do a paean of praise for it—some of the tasks identified by hon. Members that must be done in an uncertain and shifting world.
  Like all other hon. Members in the House, I give a reluctant or half-hearted cheer, because this measure is not as worthy of this nation as we expect. What I am saying is that we should stand up for the people in the services. They are our servants and servants of the public, just as we are servants. We respect them and want to help them.
  However, we must be able to attest to the public through some form of proper oversight committee, not the neutered committee provided for in the Bill, that these people are working effectively and efficiently on our behalf with the large sums of money that they command for that vital purpose. In many ways, what they do is more vital than some of our armed forces today in the wars that are important to us—the wars against terrorism, drugs and those who undermine society.
  The construction of this structure was approached in a typical British way. We are the darkest state for secrecy. We conceive our laws in the most secret way, deliver them to the House of Commons and then fight that the House may not change a line or comma. That has brought a terrible tension to so many issues. The proposition is clear —we want effective, efficient and secure security services across the range of activities.
  The House is supportive, and there is no question about that. The Bill returns to Whitehall the absolute which it must always hold and the one thing which is now causing it to crack—the need for absolute secrecy over how it comes to its judgments. It must itself determine the shape of all the legislation before the House, including that which relates to the security services.
  I wonder in my heart of hearts who conceived the Bill. Was it Ministers of the Crown working on principles that we have set out in the House, or was it a secret bureaucracy? I do not mean secret in the sense of the security services but as it relates to Whitehall, which has been opened up to us in an unprecedented manner through the Scott inquiry. The deepest and most anxious thing about that inquiry is the contempt that those involved hold towards this House. We must assert that we expect ethical and open government.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: It is with great pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the important values that he articulated, which, I am sure, we all share.
  I cannot compete with many of the hon. Members who have spoken in their knowledge of the detail of the intelligence services or, in some cases, the fantasy that they displayed about the operation of the security services. However, I have a strong and settled view of my own, which is that the intelligence services are a necessary and perfectly legitimate part of government.
  People accept the secretive and potentially dangerous interference with their freedom because of the protection which they get in return from it. Hon. Members have stated the variety of threats that are posed to our country, and they do not need further repeating. I have no difficulty and, I am sure, the people whom I represent in the House have no difficulty in justifying the operation and the conduct of the intelligence services.
  The question for us is what principles and framework should govern the operation of the intelligence services. What guards and protection of our civil liberties need to be erected and strengthened through the enactment of this legislation? Specifically, what important parliamentary oversight and public regulation of the security and intelligence services should follow from the Secret Intelligence Service being placed on a statutory basis, as the Security Service already is?
  The framework of the Bill offers a worthwhile set of checks and balances which should be neither dismissed out of hand, as some have implied in their speeches, nor accepted without question. There are many important questions and possible amendments to the Bill which we need to consider, and there are a number of areas that we need to probe. In responding to the debate, the Minister should give some elucidation of the Government's view.
  We must ask whether the three distinct provisions for oversight which are set out in the Bill—the creation of the commissioner, the tribunal and the parliamentary committee or, more appropriately, the committee of parliamentarians—have real powers which would be capable of being exercised effectively, or whether they have the pretence of powers which could be all too easily brushed aside.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to the variety of arrangements that exist in different countries for providing some oversight of the security services. He offered his own opinion that in each country all the arrangements are different. I suggest that in none of the countries that the right hon. Gentleman has examined are the arrangements quite so toothless—[Interruption.] I am offering that as my view, not as the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The powers set out in the Bill may be more appropriately described as circumscribed. The Government's approach in the Bill to the oversight powers which they are seeking to establish can best be described as one of positive containment of those they are setting up and to whom they are giving powers. Of course, that makes the selection or appointment of those who will fill the various positions created in this Bill all the more important. If there is a small set of timorous individuals, the powers
  228
  that have been established will be all the less significant. We must have some aggressive tigers in those roles and positions if the powers are to have any effect.
  Reference has been made to clause 7 of the Bill, which enables the Secretary of State to authorise illegal activities outside Britain. I question, as others have done before me, whether the powers outlined in clause 7 are too sweeping. I ask the Minister specifically whether the terms of clause 7 refer to illegal activities authorised by the Secretary of State himself or to activities authorised in his name but not necessarily by him directly or personally. That makes an enormous difference to our attitude to that authorisation. I hope that the Minister will refer to what level of decision-making might be envisaged in the authorisation.
  Thirdly, I question whether the powers of intelligence chiefs and Ministers to block information and restrict access are too great. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) referred to schedule 3. Paragraph 4 of schedule 3 refers to "sensitive information", which is by any measure extremely embracing, not to say draconian, in its sweep. I wonder whether there should be some override mechanism or some means of arbitration between the individuals and bodies proposed in the Bill. I should like to know the Minister's views on that.
  Next, we should go in some detail into the issue of search and tapping warrants and ask whether it should be left exclusively in ministerial rather than judicial hands. Presumably the Government have thought the matter through and have good reasons for wanting to remove judicial hands entirely from the issue of warrants. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. I wonder whether the Commissioner should be empowered by the Bill to intervene at a slightly earlier stage than is envisaged in the Bill in the issue of such warrants.
  I also wonder whether there should be greater and earlier disclosure of records if no threat to national security is involved. I wonder what criteria the Government have in mind for the disclosure of those records and what definition of national security they have in mind. A definition was set out in the Security Service Act 1989, but it is not in the Bill. We should know why and what definition of national security the Government have in mind.
  An inportant matter that is of great concern to me and my hon. Friends is recognition of trade unions at Government Communications Headquarters. It is unfortunate that, following a meeting between trade union representatives and the Prime Minister before Christmas, at which possible means of resolving the disagreement involving the the creation of no-strike arrangements were floated, the Prime Minister decided to dismiss the proposals out of hand. That decision would need considerable justification by the Minister in our consideration of the Bill.
  If the trust of the public in the intelligence services is to be cemented, the provisions of the Bill should be strengthened in several areas, some of which I have mentioned. Above all, if oversight is to mean anything —I do not confuse it with operational supervision, which I shall come to in a moment—I agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that the Bill should provide clear principles for the operation of the security services. It should set out clear standards below which the services are not expected to fall.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to the Canadian royal commission, which set out some clear

  229
  guidelines, and he has referred to some of those guidelines. Time does not permit me to describe others, but they commend themselves. Obviously, a great deal of thought has been given to the subject in Canada. The guidelines set out by the Canadian royal commission provide a useful rubric which might be employed by the Intelligence and Security Committee when it is set up as a result of the enactment of the Bill.
  For me, the heart of the issue is not simply the external oversight of the security services, but the operational supervision—a term which I use advisedly. I share the views of my colleagues who do not believe that oversight means involvement or dabbling in the day-to-day details and activities of the security services. But operational supervision is very important indeed. Day-to-day control of the security services is not, and should not be, a function of any parliamentary committee; it is a function of Ministers, and Ministers alone.
  The central and last point of my speech is that, in my view, it is a question not whether the Bill properly makes a shift from a presumption of secrecy to accountability in the operation of the security services—in theory it obviously does, and that is welcome—but whether, as a result of the shift, the intelligence services, in their day-to-day operation, will be better directed, more capably managed and more efficiently controlled by Ministers. I believe that this will depend, above all, on the performance of Ministers, the attitude they bring to their work in this crucial area of government, the discretion that they exercise and the scrupulous use of their powers and on the attitudes that are passed on to the heads of the security and intelligence services. For me, this is of paramount importance.
  At the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary said—I paraphrase his remarks—that the security services do not work to their own agenda, that they do not work without direction and instructions from Ministers, that they carry out their tasks in relation to specific policies. It is immensely difficult, but extremely important, to ensure that when the Intelligence and Security Committee approaches its work it will not be unduly frustrated and obfuscated by a fussy and pedantic ministerial distinction between tasks and policies. This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary established clearly that they are the two sides of the same coin. It is very difficult to disentangle from the policies laid down by Ministers the tasks that are carried out in pursuit of those policies. Both must be subject to questioning and scrutiny by the committee made up of hon. Members.
  This is a crucial and central issue, which I hope that the Minister will address. The Foreign Secretary did not go into it in sufficient detail. Recorded remarks of a previous Home Secretary indicated that it was impossible to make a distinction between operation and policy. That was his argument against having any oversight at all. In moving away from that view, we need to ensure that hon. Members understand much more clearly how tasks and policies will be understood and disentangled, if at all. It is on the impact of greater openness and of opportunity to question the political control of the services that success or failure for this legislation hang.
  In other areas of administration, the scrutiny and accountability of Ministers afforded by parliamentary
  230
  oversight results in better government. Exactly the same applies to the intelligence and security services. A principal aim of the Bill must be that the creation of checks and balances will focus Ministers' minds and help to ensure high standards and effectiveness in operational supervision. The oversight for which the Bill provides is the means by which we shall drive Ministers to achieve those high standards and that effectiveness. If that is not achieved, the legislation will be worthless.
  The intelligence services only collect information. The Joint Intelligence Committee analyses it and Ministers must decide what to do as a result of that analysis. Ministers are therefore crucial. It may well be, as some hon. Members have suggested, that before the Falklands war or the invasion of Kuwait the intelligence services were somewhat at fault. I do not know—I do not have enough knowledge to say—but I hazard a guess that if the services were at fault on those occasions they are certainly exceeded by the number of occasions, areas and subjects on which the services got it right, averted conflict and secured our country's national interest.
  Ultimately, Ministers must take responsibility for their own and others' actions. Throughout the Scott inquiry, we have witnessed the ability and inclination of some Ministers to overlook matters from time to time that it would be expedient for them not to see, to react and act expediently when they so wish and when it would be politically embarrassing for them to do otherwise, and even to mislead Parliament when it suited them and then to try to shuffle off responsibility when they were found out. The Bill should guard against that happening in relation to the security and intelligence services and prevent such sloppy and cavalier attitudes on the part of some Ministers. I believe that the Bill will be extremely important, once enacted, as a means of guarding against such behaviour and arresting it.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: Earlier in the debate, my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) were able to speak from their direct experience of the service that the security and intelligence services have rendered.
  In the days when I served as a bag carrier and general factotum to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I was rightly never privy to the working methods of those services or to details of the information that they gained. However, I knew enough about what was happening in the Foreign Office to know this. In 1990, when British subjects were in hiding in Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion and other British subjects were being detained as hostages within Iraq, the information gleaned by our security and intelligence services helped the Government to advise and reassure relatives waiting in distress at home and to shape the diplomatic initiatives that enabled real help and comfort to be brought to those British citizens in need.
  I certainly agreed with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) when he spoke of the necessity for intelligence and security services in the British state today. I must confess that when I first studied the Bill and realised that the Government had agreed to some measure of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of those services I

  231
  thought that perhaps they had gone too far. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) very fairly drew attention to the paradox that one could have two kinds of committee. One could have a committee that was privy to the innermost workings of the security and intelligence services and, for that reason, could never divulge its findings—for good or for ill—to those in a position to take the appropriate action. Alternatively, one could have a committee whose members would be excluded from detailed knowledge of the workings of those services and therefore incapable of carrying out their task.
  Having listened to the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and studied the B ill in more detail I am somewhat reassured, although I would always want to be satisfied by Ministers that they are striking the right balance between desirable openness and the very necessary secrecy that must still apply to the work of the British security and intelligence services.
  I listened particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, who talked about the need for greater supervision: of the budgets of the security and intelligence services. Anyone who has in recent years watched Vauxhall palace rise brick by brick over the London skyline would support the need for such scrutiny and the need for it be rigorous.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about accountability. I found myself unable to support the hon. Lady's argument that the Intelligence and Security Committee and the commissioner should report directly to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister and to the relevant Secretaries of State. The security and intelligence services are part of the central core of what constitutes the state and, therefore, it is right that they should report to the relevant Ministers and that those Ministers be held accountable to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills spoke, as always, with passion and eloquence and from the noblest of motives. I differ from him in that he gave insufficient weight to the safeguards that are provided by the institutions and political culture developed through this country's history and tradition. He put too much confidence in written constitutions and statutory rules and regulations, which will prove worthless in the absence of the right culture in government, as has been shown in the histories of other states during this century.
  The Government have sought correctly to strike a balance between openness and secrecy and they have displayed caution in striking that balance. Because of the nature of the services that we are debating today, that caution is amply justified and therefore I am very willing to support the Bill.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The debate has been extremely interesting. Throughout the afternoon, a large number of hon. Members have been present and, for myself, it has been an education. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I shall refer to it later. His speech, as much as anyone else's, touched on some of the fundamental questions that face us when we deal with issues such as security, the balance between security and the rights of individuals, and the general concept of parliamentary democracy.
  232
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said in his opening remarks that the Opposition support the Bill and will not divide the House on Second Reading. We support it because we believe that it is necessary to put the secret service on a statutory basis.
  I also pay tribute to and thank the men and women of the intelligence services who, over many years, have played a crucial part in the protection of British interests and citizens around the world. Other hon. Members have alluded to the fact that we are a secret and secretive society. That secrecy pertains not only to the matters under discussion today, but in general to the Government. Regardless of the fact that the Government have appointed a Minister with responsibility for open government, day by day, they continually, whether because of arrogance or incompetence, or because of a combination of the two, close up and become more secretive. Indeed, as some Conservative Members have said, the Government have compounded the position by subverting the parliamentary process.
  We recognise that the effectiveness of the country's security and intelligence services depends on a degree of secrecy that would be unacceptable in other institutions. But that very latitude puts them in a unique position to abuse their powers and, on behalf of their political masters, to use them in ways that are no longer acceptable in a democratic society. It is therefore crucial that the need for complete secrecy is carefully considered and that all other options are explored before it is accepted.
  Over the years, British society has shown that it is perfectly prepared to accept limitations on personal freedoms where those are absolutely necessary, and even the abrogation of principles of political, financial and legal accountability. Even where full accountability is not possible, the people of this country have accepted other democratic options. If the presumption of accountability is not adopted but, instead, a presumption of secrecy continues, can society be satisfied that the secret services exist to protect it, not to threaten it?
  There are now too many examples of the complacency of the secret service in this country and in other countries. That matter was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Inevitably, the nature of the service is such that many of the stories put about —I shall refer later to the contribution by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—are false, exaggerated or rely on fantasy. But because of the present position of the security services and the fact that they have been avowed in the past, they cannot correct those stories. That difficulty adds weight to the argument that the maximum political and legal control should be exercised and be seen to be exercised to convice society that a demand for secrecy is made only when secrecy is absolutely necessary.
  Although the effectiveness of the security services depends on secrecy, our acceptance of the Bill depends on parliamentary scrutiny of the secret services. We are convinced that the Bill is not only badly drafted but does not provide for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Aften even a cursory reading of the Bill, we can see that its construction is such that it poses more questions than it answers. That fact has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. For that reason alone, although we shall not vote against the Bill this evening, we shall

  233
  seek substantial clarification and amendment in Committee. I was pleased to hear some Conservative Members say that they, too, want that to happen.
  Besides its bad drafting and the many ambiguities that it contains, the Bill introduces some novel legal and constitutional concepts that are not elucidated or explained. We shall want to explore those in Committee. For example, the activities of the Security Service on mainland Britain need to be defined. We may find that, on further examination, the activities that the Bill allows in overseas countries might breach international treaties and obligations. Those are all matter for serious consideration.
  Will the Minister clarify in his winding speech what is meant by "the British islands" mentioned in the Bill? As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no legal or constitutional definition. I should like to know what exactly is meant by "the British islands". It would be extremely useful if we had a definition before we reached Committee.
  The Foreign Secretary has now joined us. I enjoyed his opening remarks this afternoon. On certain occasions, I felt that he was not quite sure about the substance of the Bill that he was introducing. [Interruption.] It was fairly obvious from some of his remarks that were picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, who asked the Foreign Secretary some questions that he was unable to answer, but perhaps that is not unusual.
  One point that the Foreign Secretary made which I found perhaps not laughable but rather sad was that we needed the secret service because of weapon proliferation. I should have thought that the easiest way for a Foreign Secretary to overcome weapon proliferation was actively to pursue the control of arms and the arms trade and to introduce an arms register that could be properly supervised rather than to say that we must have a secret service to control the movement of arms. The mechanisms exist so long as the Government are honestly prepared to subscribe to them.
  Mr. King: Quite apart from the question of treaty control and arms treaties—and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister instituted the proposal of a register for the sale of arms—a real problem is what might be called the free market. There is a real problem of gangster groups and others stealing weapons and seeking to sell them to the highest bidder. It is not a breach of confidence to say that out intelligence services and others have already done some important work in preventing that illicit trade.
  Mr. Rogers: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. He brings his vast experience as an ex-Secretary of State for Defence to the debate. I am sure that he will also accept that, if the Governments of the western world applied themselves to implementing an arms register and properly controlling arms, we would be well down the road towards preventing the proliferation of weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction—and I do not mean only nuclear weapons.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise that Russian arms, for instance, are freely available in many parts of the world. However, I am not sure that we need a secret service to tell us that. Such facts are fairly obvious, even to the Conservative party.
  234
  The Conservative party has a fairly bad record in such matters. Over the past five or six years, as the ex-Secretary of State for Defence will know, I have been asking questions about the export of arms to Iraq. As many hon. Members have said, the Scott inquiry is looking into the matter, and some right hon. and hon. Members have threatened to resign if they are criticised by the Scott inquiry. The inquiry certainly has grounds for substantial criticism of the Government.
  As for weapon proliferation, perhaps it would be better if the Foreign Secretary put his own house in order before suggesting the prescription he put forward today.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised important points about the substance of the Bill. The whole process of accountability, for example, was rehearsed by many hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland spoke of our general unhappiness with the Government's minimalist approach to the process of reporting to, scrutiny by and accountability to Parliament. If there is to be anything other than a charade of parliamentary accountability, a different mechanism must be introduced.
  Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has said that the mechanisms in the Bill will not be adequate for proper parliamentary scrutiny and proper accountability. Accountability to Parliament is an important aspect of the Bill and of what we are all about. But there is also accountability the other way—to society and the law, not only the law of this land, but when we are talking about a foreign intelligence service, as MI6 is, accountability to the laws of other lands. The Bill does not give real and substantial control over the work of the services to Parliament. Accountability is necessary, because agents of the state who act on its behalf must be subject to adequate control by the electorate, the people of this country whom, as the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills said, we serve. Although there was some misunderstanding across the Dispatch Box this afternoon, we agreed that just under £1 billion a year is spent by the secret service agencies. The three services must be accountable to ensure that those large sums of money are properly accounted for so that they are used efficiently and effectively. Secrecy encourages inefficiency.
  Other issues of accountability that emerged were membership, structure, functions and the role of the committee itself, which will be set up in the House under the proposals in the Bill. The appointment system will be carried out after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, but will be solely in the hands of the Prime Minister. It is specifically provided that the Prime Minister also has the right to remove a person whom he does not want to serve on the committee. It will not be a committee of the House; it will not be responsible to the House. It will be a committee of the Prime Minister. The idea that some form of parliamentary accountability is being introduced is complete nonsense.
  It is presumed that the security services will vet the members before they are put on the committee. I do not know how many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, put in their bids to be members of the committee, or for chairmanship of it, but whenever I have looked up into the Galleries and into the Box, some faces have been fairly constant. I presume that hon. Members are presently being vetted for their membership of the commitee, even as they speak. I am sorry to have to tell those hon. Members who have been absent all day and have just come in that

  235
  they are non-runners. They will certainly not be joining the starting line-up. I am sure that everyone who aspires to membership of the committee recognises that its role, as the Bill says, in examining
  "the expenditure, administration and policy"
  will need to be defined. I think that it was the right hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who said that membership of the committee would involve a lot of hard work, that it could not be someone dodging in and out and saying, "I'll do half an hour here and half an hour there." To have any form of scrutiny in this poorly constructed committee, it will be necessary for people to dedicate themselves to the job in hand.
  When the Bill is in Committee, I hope that we will be able to get clear definitions of what we are about and the matters that we are to address. One issue that we will want to address is the committee's access to information. If what is to come to the committee will be vetted by the Prime Minister, the director-general of the relevant service and anyone else who wants to chip in before it even comes to the committee, it will be a charade; it will be nonsense. Not only will the Committee have not much of a role to play; what role it has will be worthless in any event.
  If, as we have heard today, the culture of the services restricts the provision of information to a need-to-know basis, it seems to me that the committee will need to know nothing; any information that is likely to be contentious will be sidelined or removed by the Prime Minister before it can even reach the committee. Even if it percolates through that sieve, by the time the committee reports to the Prime Minister—it will not be reporting to Parliament—the whole concept of parliamentary scrutiny will have gone by the board.
  I am not sure whether the Secretary of State is present in his role as Minister for open government or in his capacity as Minister for the Cabinet Office. Perhaps he or the Foreign Secretary can assure us that they are prepared to examine the serious arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I could deal with many serious issues that have been raised, but, because of the agreement between the Front Benches, I must close my speech. Let me end by referring to a matter that has been mentioned more by Opposition Members than by Conservatives.
  I welcome the return to the Chamber of the hon. Member for Torbay. I found his "Book at Bedtime" extremely interesting.
  One of the most important issues with which we shall deal in Committee is the question of trade union membership at GCHQ. I know that the former Home Secretary—who was involved in the decision about GCHQ, and who is again involved as Foreign Secretary —has a particular view, and much has been said about the matter. The Labour party, however, is completely and consistently opposed to the Government's continued stubborn refusal to see sense. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said, when the Labour Government are elected we will end that abuse of human rights and democracy.
  9.42 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I may not be able to do full justice to the many good speeches that have been made, partly because I have been left with slightly less time than was planned.
  The Bill has received a broad welcome from a variety of quarters in the House. Serious speeches were made by, for instance, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
  Although the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) ended his speech in a slightly eccentric way, he began by saying, "We support the Bill." The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert)—to whose speech I shall return several times—made a formidable contribution, as did a number of my colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), touched the tiller in the other direction, expressing anxiety lest we go too far.
  There was universal support for one aspect of the legislation. In this regard, I have the backing of both my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—who, at one point, made me a little nervous by saying that we were taking a small step in the right direction: he does not often say that to me. Both agreed that —in the words of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—there was no lack of targets in the new world. Fortunately, there is no lack of new targets for serious, well-organised and well-tasked intelligence services.
  I echo the tributes that many hon. Members have paid to the service provided by those whom the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rightly described as public servants like any others—public servants, however, who often live in dangerous and hazardous conditions, and serve us very well. Given the strengths of this country in the new world—given the cards that we must play and the pieces that we can deploy on the international chess boards —our intelligence services are a major asset to the country and the free world. We should preserve and honour them.
  We should therefore oversee them properly. It is to their credit that they now strongly believe that there should be proper oversight, and that they especially believe that all the services should be put on a statutory basis, which is now right.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) rightly paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, one of whose many achievements has been completely to change round the way in which we approach those matters in this country—first the Security Service, now the other two agencies. He did so under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  As to the operational details, there has, with one or two exceptions, been unanimity about the fact that any sensible democratic assembly will exercise, in the phrase—although he approached it with some care—of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, a self-denying ordinance about the investigation of operational details.

  237
  The right hon. Member for Copeland made a good analogy in a sense—it is only an analogy—with police affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is right to say that the House has the power to inspect everything, but it is the sign of a mature democracy that it sets itself some self-denying ordinances. There are many others, in less sensitive sectors, but it is right to do so in the intelligence sector above all.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), in what I thought was an impressive speech, said that we should consider the Bill from the point of view of people working in the services, and he is right to say that we should have that perspective.
  I would add another perspective. One should consider the Bill also from the point of view of someone who might, at considerable risk to himself or herself, perhaps in a totalitarian or fascist country, be considering working with one of our agencies. That situation occurs regularly, and such people do great service to freedom, and to their own countries in the end. The agent who is working with him has to be able to say that his life is secure; that there will not be too many people poking about in the works of the thing, and that the thing is properly secure.
  I believe that those people who said that we should be careful about operational details were right. I believe also—in this respect I agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), on one point if not on others—that there has been an atmosphere, to some extent, of mutual suspicion. If we can now get arrangements right, as I believe we are doing, that mutual suspicion, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills also referred, will diminish and—of great help to the people who do that serious work—the atmosphere of fantasy in which the work of the services is so often written about will dissolve.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is probably doing a great disservice to a productive British industry—the production of fantastical spy stories, on which we are experts. My right hon. Friend is an author of distinction, so he may damage his own sales. I hope that he will not damage the sales of the works of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay or anyone of that type. The more openness and sensible accounting we do, the less absurd stories are generated, the less fantasy develops, the less nonsense is talked.
  An argument was made about the money. One of the best ways of hiding information is to publish it in Hansard. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a written question in Hansard on 30 November 1993, which said that the budget was about £900 million at the moment, so there is no great mystery about that.
  Before I discuss more important matters, I shall reply to some minor arguments. The right hon. Member for Copeland quoted from the report of the Security Service Act Commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, and chilled our blood for a moment with the first part of what he said. The commissioner said:
  "I cannot answer the question categorically"
  as to whether there are illegal operations
  "because it is not my function to review the operations of the Service and in the nature of things such operations"—
  this was the point on which he put emphasis—
  "if they existed, would be concealed".
  238
  For some reason, the right hon. Gentleman stopped reading at that point, but Lord Justice Stuart-Smith continued:
  "I consider that I am in a position as a result of my experience over the past three years to express an informed opinion on this question. It is my opinion that such operations are not undertaken."
  He then cited four reasons why he believed that to be the case. I therefore think that the right hon. Gentleman was expressing an unnecessary anxiety.
  The British islands, which confused the hon. Member for Rhondda are statutorily defined. They are outlined in the Interpretation Act 1978 and are standard in legislation. They include the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
  The structure of the Bill has general support, but I shall come back to the aspects over which there is straightforward disagreement. I should not have expected the representatives of the Labour party to abandon their previous view in relation to a Select Committee. They have, quite fairly, put it to the House again today, and I make no complaint about that.
  However, the structure of having a commissioner and a tribunal and an oversight committee—the right hon. Member for Copeland then argued about the nature of such a committee—has broad support. That is a considerable step forward and I hope that it will form the basis for a good deal of further agreement if we can work out some of the details in Committee.
  Many of the details are technical. We must discuss in Committee the question of privilege, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East. It is not for me to define privilege, but we must ensure that the reports from the committee can be handled properly, and that the people who come before the committee are properly protected. Such issues are exactly those which the Committee must discuss. I shall deal later with the committee, which has caused the most argument.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool made foreign comparisons, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater in his excellent speech. Everyone says, as a cliché that needs no further proof, that Britain is the most secretive society in the world. However, if the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, we shall be far from the most secretive.
  It is impossible to find any reference to the French security services in French statute, and there is no oversight of their proceedings. The French are at one extreme and the Americans at the other. If the Bill is passed, we shall be in a position not unlike that in Australia and Canada. There will be differences, but the positions will be comparable. Right hon. and hon. Members need not think that we are far out of the sensible pack in this respect.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that he hoped that we were offering the Bill as a considered view by which we would stick, not as a first step to something else. We have thought long and hard about the balance we needed to strike, and we believe that we have arrived at a solution which once it has been put into practice, will be seen to work, will gather authority and respect in the House and outside and will not be only a temporary change leading to something else.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland teased us that we had changed our minds on some matters. That is so, but there is nothing dishonourable in our changing our minds. The Labour party should not use that argument without some care, because, as I understand it, the Labour party's

  239
  present position is that it has changed its mind about everything in which it believed in the early 1980s, so it is now a different party.
  That appears to cause some tension in various part of the party, but the right hon. Member for Copeland is now much more comfortable with his party's policy than he was in the early 1980s. I suspect that he believes the changes have been a good thing, but some of his colleagues may have forgotten they have changed their minds.
  Let us consider the arguments for a Select Committee versus the committee proposed in the Bill. It is perfectly right to say—and best to make it absolutely clear—that the proposed committee is not a committee of Parliament in the usual sense, but a committee of parliamentarians.
  It is better to be entirely clear about that. We propose to introduce a more or less unique committee. I can find no exact parallel. It was eloquently argued by the right hon. Member for Copeland and by several of his colleagues that the committee should be a Select Committee. We have considered the case for doing so, and I shall now examine the arguments.
  The right hon. Member for Dudley, East put out a seductive stall, saying that we could have a Select Committee under such controls that its members would effectively be nominated by the Prime Minister, by a resolution put before the House of Commons, and its publications could be controlled by the Prime Minister, as could the sidelining. By the end of his argument, the right hon. Gentleman had persuaded himself that there would be little difference between his Select Committee and our committee, except in the timing of its publications.
  In that case, I believe that those who are dissatisfied with our committee, such as the hon. Member for Workington, would soon become dissatisfied with the Select Committee suggested by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East, too. They might feel that a Select Committee should not be trammelled in that way.
  The right hon. Member for Dudley, East was fair in a way, because he said that we were missing a presentational trick. However, in order to gain in presentational terms, we would run the risk—which was mentioned by several of my hon. Friends and by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—of losing the significant elements of control. We should not do that simply for presentational gain; I agree with the right hon. Member about that.
  I have little time left, and I cannot cover many points that I should like to have discussed. I shall write to hon. Members about those. The other crucial factor concerns the committee's access to information and its powers to summon other people. We shall need to examine those matters closely in Committee.
  I believe that some hon. Members have made themselves unnecessarily nervous about the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill. The provision in schedule 3, paragraph 3(1)(b)(ii), that says that he can refuse access or override information is subject to subparagraph (4), which says that he cannot do so on grounds of national security alone. He can use that power only to control the kind of information that would not be given by Ministers to a Select Committee. That does not trammel the committee, and the argument is not to do with the limitation of sensitive information, other than that limited by paragraph 4, which deals with operations. I believe that there is a broad consensus on both sides of the House on that paragraph.
  240
  The right hon. Member for Dudley, East also mentioned the Lord Chancellor's point about operations. I believe that we broadly agree that schedule 3, paragraph 4, restricts the disclosure of sensitive information to the committee only when that information is about particular operations. The hon. Member for Hartlepool used the word "tasking". As I am sure he knows, that word has a proper meaning in this sphere.
  The committee will be involved in very secret areas that have never before been shared with others outside the Secretary of State's responsibilities—for example, matters to do with the tasking of the services. The committee will not only deal with high-level policy in a broad-brush way; it will be able to examine the actual tasking, the money and the organisational structures.
  The committee will be fully trusted, and fully inside the secret wall. I believe that the result, while it will not establish within the House the parliamentary accountability that, for reasons that I have not had time to do more than sketch out tonight, we believe would be extremely difficult to organise, will be to spread the reassurance that senior, trusted people on both sides of the House share the secrets of the services, and have a formidable power to cause trouble for the Government.
  Somebody asked earlier where the teeth were. The teeth consist of the fact that the committee, staffed by very senior Members of the House, will have the right not to publish stuff that would damage national security—which it would not want to do—but to write a report saying, "We believe that things are not being handled properly, and that Ministers are not responding properly." No Government in their senses would want to risk such criticism. That is why the committee will be powerful, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Dr. John Cunningham: There are clear constitutional issues involved in the proposals. Therefore, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House:—
  The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 299.

  DIVISION No. 138]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cryer, Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boyes, Roland

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davidson, Ian

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

  Dixon, Don

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fatchett, Derek

  Clapham, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fisher, Mark

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Flynn, Paul

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Cohen, Harry

  Foulkes, George

  Connarty, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Gerrard, Neil

  241

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Miller, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Mudie, George

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hardy, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Purchase, Ken

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hutton, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Illsley, Eric

  Rooney, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Short, Clare

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Snape, Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spellar, John

  McAllion, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCartney, Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McLeish, Henry

  Welsh, Andrew

  McMaster, Gordon

  Wicks, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mahon, Alice

  Winnick, David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Martlew, Eric

  Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Chris Mullin.

  Meale, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Congdon, David

  Bates, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Beggs, Roy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bowden, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dover, Den

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Dunn, Bob

  Burns, Simon

  Dykes, Hugh

  242

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Ere wash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Faber, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lightbown, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Maclean, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hague, William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nelson, Anthony

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heald, Oliver

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rendel, David

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  243

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tyler, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Walden, George

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Spring, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sproat, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Watts, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stewart, Allan

  Whitney, Ray

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thomason, Roy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mr. Sidney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No.61 (committal of Bills).

  Intelligence Services Bill [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Intelligence Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and

  (b) any expenditure attributable to the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the carrying out of their functions.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  10.14 pm
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point or order, Madam Speaker. If my memory serves me right, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was not in the Chamber when the debate on the Bill was opened from the Government Front Bench. Surely if he had been here he would have had a full opportunity to raise the issues that he now intends to raise, undoubtedly at great length, on the money resolution.
  Madam Speaker: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is correct, but the debates are on two separate Questions. We are now dealing with the money resolution relating to the Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: I would very much have liked to be here for the beginning of the debate, but unfortunately I chair the to Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which these days have a huge volume of work due to the record number of statutory instruments poured out by the Government. That means that, if we are to do our public duty, the Committee has to spend a great deal of time upstairs examining legislation, as required by Parliament. I hope that that makes the position clear.
  I shall not follow the speeches made by other hon. Members, which were in the form of applications to join the committee that will be set up under the Bill. I am bound to follow the rules of the House and raise finance questions. The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill says:
  "The total costs of the arrangements for administering the procedures under Clauses 5, 6 and 7, for establishing and staffing the Tribunal, for assisting the Commissioner, and for assisting and staffing the Intelligence and Security Committee are expected to be about £530,000 a year".
  In terms of public expenditure, £530,000 is a small amount. I know that in people's individual experience it is vast, but for providing accountability under the Bill, it is a relatively small amount. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some answers to questions about the allocation and calculation of what is, of course, an illustrative sum, but none the less a sign that the Government have made some calculations. In my view, they ought to justify the calculation because it does not seem to me that sufficient money has been allocated.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is on the Front Bench. As a Minister, he has had the experience of having to justify a money resolution and then coming back to the House with two further money resolutions for the same Bill because sufficiently extensive authority had not been given. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me and the House that the money resolution gives full authority for all the expenditure that

  245
  the Government have in mind. I shall feel bound to examine the Minister's response critically. If it is unsatisfactory, we can vote against the money resolution.
  First, the £530,000 covers all the paraphernalia and administration of obtaining warrants. On the face of it, that may not be a very comprehensive activity, but when one recalls that the warrants are for burglary and bugging, one realises that there must be careful assessment. Careful assessment involves time. Either there will have to be many people making the assessments or the officers will have to be used for long periods to produce the information that the Secretary of State will require for authorisation of warrants to enter property, bug telephones and undertake operations of the sort about which Peter Wright wrote in his book.
  Peter Wright has been denied tonight. We have been told that this new and changed legislation is a departure from activities of the sort that he engaged in. It is claimed that all the people in the security services are very decent and not at all like Peter Wright. One wonders, therefore, why the Government spent several million pounds in their attempts to prevent Peter Wright from publishing his revelations. In any case, the advice that Ministers receive in connection with the production of those warrants will be very comprehensive and important. I wonder what financial provision has been made.
  We are talking not about the generality of costs arising from the secret services—the so-called security services—which has been agreed at just under £1 billion a year, but about expenditure that will arise directly from the Bill. According to the explanatory memorandum, the expenditure under clauses 5, 6 and 7, which deal with the issue of warrants and their authority, is completely separate from, and over and above, the approximately £900 million that the security services spend each year.
  The commissioner charged with overseeing the security services will have to be a person who has held high judicial office. Judges' salaries are in the telephone-number range—pushing six figures. If the commissioner receives a salary of £100,000—or close to that, taking into consideration national insurance contributions—that will be virtually one fifth of the calculated expenditure. It will be interesting to know whether the commissioner is to be full time or part time.
  Then there will be the staff, all of whom will be dealing with highly secret matters and will therefore be paid at a higher civil service rate. Three, four or five staff, together with the commissioner, will knock a big hole in £200,000, or will they be paid out of the annual budget of £900 million? We are talking here about money authorised to cover actions under this legislation, not about the generality of expenditure. It will be interesting to know what proportion of the £500,000 the commissioner and his staff will take up.
  The tribunal has an important function. It will cost a significant amount—certainly significant in the context of £500,000— and it will have to be able to direct the Secretary of State to pay compensation to people who have been mistreated by the security services. Individuals have their private correspondence opened and their telephones tapped, and people are misrepresented. We know that the security services are not above feeding misinformation to sympathetic journalists. People can be misrepresented in
  246
  the press and on television, which also has sympathetic journalists. Homes are burgled, and private lives are intruded upon to a significant degree.
  A welcome step is that the tribunal will have the authority to direct the Secretary of State to award compensation. Will that be authorised as part of the £530,000, or whatever the figure is—it is about that amount—or will it come from some other fund? Compensation cases must arise from activities authorised in the Bill. It is clear that two or three compensation cases could soak up the entire £530,000 mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It would be helpful if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could tell us the sort of compensation that he has in mind and whether adequate compensation will be provided in the serious cases on which the tribunal can direct the Secretary of State.
  Finally, the costs of the Intelligence and Security committee are not made clear. I listened to several speeches in the debate on Second Reading. Some hon. Members thought that the committee should resemble a Select Committee, which has relatively modest expenses. However, the committee will not be like that. It will be a clique of the righteous—a clique of Privy Councillors and of safe people. Do we really want safe people—safe in the sense that they will not ask pertinent or probing questions —to supervise the security services?
  As the Chancellor said when he replied to the Second Reading debate, the powers of the committee members will be considered in the Standing Committee. That is right and proper, but will the £530,000 mentioned be enough if the Intelligence and Security Committee is provided with the power to call persons and papers before it as a Select Committee would do?
  Will committee members be paid? Surely this clique of the so-called great and the good—I would put that in quotation marks—will include some pillars of the establishment, who are usually greedy people who want additional money when they serve the establishment that they so diligently protect. Will they be paid? If they are, their salaries and additional amounts for secretarial services will take a fair chunk of the £500,000 that the Minister said would be the sort of annual expenditure involved.
  If there are two or three cases requiring compensation and if the six members of the Intelligence and Security Committee do their work properly, ask for the volume of evidence and comb through the security services when there are miscarriages of justice, the cost of running that step towards accountability will be much more than the £530,000 mentioned so far.
  When we are debating money resolutions, it is important for the Minister to give a rough account to the House, so that it can be placed on the record and I expect the Minister to do so. I also expect him to be well briefed because money resolutions have a welcome tendency to be debated in greater detail these days. I dare say, therefore, that the Minister is well prepared to respond.
  10.28 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Waldegrave): It is greatly to the credit of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that money resolutions are debated in greater detail. I think that he holds the record for doing so and I shall attempt to answer his perfectly fair questions.

  247
  The resolution provides for expenditure of about £530,000 a year and, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is the sum that we have estimated to be necessary to cover the costs associated with the appointment of a commissioner and tribunal, the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the general administrative provisions of the Bill.
  The costs will be met from the existing public expenditure provisions for the agencies and relevant Government Departments. Where the commissioner and members of the tribunal are serving members of the judiciary, no additional salary will be payable for duties undertaken in connection with the legislation. The estimated costs include incidental expenses that may be incurred and necessary administrative support. It is difficult to be precise about such costs, but we have done our best.
  The estimate is partly based on the experience of the operation of the Security Service Act 1989. It is anticipated that the intelligence service commissioner and tribunal will perform broadly similar duties to those undertaken by the comparable organisations under the 1989 Act. I can confirm that the current Security Service Commissioner and members of the tribunal have already been approached and have shown their willingness in principle to assume those duties—apart from being sensible, that will save money.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South spoke of compensation. He is perfectly right that, if compensation awards are made, the money should come out of the allocated sum. It is impossible to make a rational prediction. If there were a rash of justified complaints that won compensation and overbalanced the budget—I hope that that would not happen—I have no doubt that the committee would have to seek further resources.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Have there been any compensation claims? Has any compensation been paid under the Security Service Act 1989?
  Mr. Waldegrave: No. The reports from the commissioner showed that there had not been any complaints that he regarded as justified. No compensation payments have been made. That makes it difficult to predict the future. As the commissioner has said, it was likely that, in the early days, many not necessarily well-founded complaints that had been stored up would be brought to him.
  The members of the oversight committee, Members of Parliament, will receive no additional salary. It was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that members of the House of Lords should be paid, but that seems to be a divisive proposal. The committee will need suitable accommodation facilities. They will be made available in the Cabinet Office, which will also provide the support staff. Those arrangements will ensure that, given the sensitive nature of the committee's work, the necessary security considerations are met.
  The public services' manpower requirement, which is needed to provide support for the commissioner and the committee and to deal with the general implementation of the Bill, is estimated at nine. The costs will be met from within existing provision.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister said that the staff for the committee would be supplied from the Cabinet Office. Is that on the presumption that the committee will stay as suggested, and will not be a committee of the House?
  Mr. Waldegrave: We could not cost a different Bill. If the Bill is amended in important ways, the costs will be different.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 58.

  Division No. 139]

  [10.32 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alexander, Richard

  Elletson, Harold

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Faber, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  French, Douglas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gallie, Phil

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Garnier, Edward

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran James

  Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravenbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  249

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Pickles, Eric

  Key, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Ere wash)

  Richards, Rod

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Riddick, Graham

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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Knox, Sir David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Legg, Barry

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Leigh, Edward

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Luff, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Soames, Nicholas

  Madel, Sir David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Spring, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Sproat, Iain

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stephen, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mills, Iain

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

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

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  250

  Tyler, Paul

  Whittingdale, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wilkinson, John

  Walden, George

  Wilshire, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Whitney, Ray

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tly NE)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Barnes, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Illsley, Eric

  Betts, Clive

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cann, Jamie

  McAllion, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cohen, Harry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Connarty, Michael

  McWilliam, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Mahon, Alice

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dixon, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Mudie, George

  Dowd, Jim

  Pickthall, Colin

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Etherington, Bill

  Rooney, Terry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  Flynn, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  George, Bruce

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Welsh, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Graham, Thomas

  Wise, Audrey

  Gunnell, John

  Hall, Mike

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hanson, David

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Bill Michie.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Nicholson be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Sir David Mitchell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Bruce Grocott be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Nicholas Brown be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

  Legislation (Consultation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now -adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, for agreeing to answer this short debate. I am particularly grateful since I know that the luck of the draw has landed him with this additional burden in an exceptionally busy week. For my hon. Friend to have made the transition so successfully from the secret society of the Whips Office to the Department of open government gives me real hope that my arguments, which seek a substantial change in establishment attitudes, will not fall on deaf ears tonight.
  I should make it plain from the start that my contention is in no sense partisan. If I appear critical of some aspects of parliamentary procedure, or indeed of Government procedures, my purpose is to put on the agenda of public debate the effectiveness or propriety of some of the ways in which this country is currently governed—ways that would be adopted by any Government of whatever political complexion, but which in my view need to be questioned. Professor Crick's book was published in 1964, and in 1976 the Labour Government set up a Select Committee for what in some ways was the last serious look at the functions of Parliament. Lord Hailsham's "Elective Dictatorship" was published in the same year. So this is hardly a matter to be laid at the door of any one Administration or party.
  "Consultation in advance of legislation" is Table Office speak—distilled with all the inventiveness and courtesy of that ingenious office to enable me to use the Adjournment debate slot to raise matters that are seldom debated in this place. It is strangely hard to achieve such a debate because in practice Governments tend to control Parliament, although in theory the Members do. I believe that there are weaknesses in the ways in which Governments consult in advance of legislation, not least that they tend to ask the questions and then process the answers in ways that create no chance for the consultees to build on each other's contributions. There is a strong argument for more policy questions to be posed to the public as questions rather than as draft solutions to a problem, as is usual at present. The public are capable of making much more sophisticated contributions than they are usually encouraged to do.
  My main question is this. What, in effect, is to be the role of a Member of Parliament in the 21st century? Its trigger is what contribution a modern Member should make to the formulation and communication of policy. Let me explain. In the past 40 years or so, huge changes have come over our world. Communication to any part of the world or any chosen group of people has become instant. Not only verbal, but visual messages can be shared in microseconds. As a result, our constituents no longer expect to learn of great events from their representatives, but directly from the media. That is one reason why the well-attended public meeting is such a rarity. Yet in this place we fall between two stools and, like all who do that, we end up in something of a mess. Our procedures pretend that policy will be announced first to Parliament and only then to the world outside. Yet as we all know, in practice that is increasingly rare. The first that most Back-Bench Members know of policy announcements is when they hear
  252
  them on the radio or are rung up by a journalist for a comment. In the case of most announcements, the average Back Bencher can not even comment knowledgeably because the machinery for acquainting him or her with the news is so archaic. If the House is sitting, news that has been given to the media at 11 o'clock in the morning may reach a Member's pigeon hole by 5.30 pm, to be picked up if the Member happens to pass through the Members' Lobby. If the House is in recess, even that device fails. A statement may percolate through the mail to the Member's office for onward transmission via a secretary. By that time, the news story has been put to bed, and any subsequent comment is likely to appear such old hat that the journalists will not use it. That simply will not do.
  I understand that Ministers—who are extraordinarily busy people, with a country to run—may well feel that they have quite enough to do in informing the media of their policies, without taking on the additional burden of simultaneously informing Members of Parliament, some of whom may be hostile to the policy. I sympathise. The burden on modern Ministers is indeed enormous. The feeling should be resisted, however. Our constituents do not send us here to be treated as second-class citizens; they are entitled to expect their representatives not only to be given prompt information about policy, but to be able to comment on it as it may affect them.
  That brings me to a basic question: what is to be the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament in the 21st century? We are confronted by a paradox. There has never been a time in the history of this ancient Parliament when so many Members have devoted such a large proportion of their time to serving their constituencies, or working in this place. The part-time Member is fading fast. Whether that is for good or bad is material for a separate debate; what cannot be denied, however, is that most Back Benchers now regard themselves as full time.
  Yet it is arguable that these full-time paid servants of the public have never had less influence, and I believe that the public sense that. It is not—as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggested—that the intrusion of the television cameras has lowered our reputation in the country, so much as that the cameras have simply revealed to the country just how little its representatives are able to affect policy. That revelation is made more shocking each time a Member of Parliament has to confess to a journalist that the first time he heard of a policy announcement was when the journalist raised it with him.
  I have one or two sugestions to make to my hon. Friend the Minister. I shall not weep if he tells me that he cannot commit himself to supporting them tonight, but I shall be disappointed if he does not take my arguments seriously. The first suggestion is simple: why, in this technically advanced age, cannot Members of Parliament be informed of press conferences at the same time as the press, and why cannot a room be set aside here in the Palace to provide closed-circuit television coverage for any Member of Parliament who cares to watch it? That would ensure that the press conference was not disrupted—or even interrupted—by Members, while simultaneously ensuring that those who were free to do so could comment on the policy announcement afterwards with as much knowledge as the media. Arrangements rather more modern than the 19th-century board on which we currently rely could be made for the distribution of documents.

  253
  My point is that if the press can be notified, so can Members of Parliament. I believe that our constituents would like to feel that their representatives in the Palace of Westminster were given an indication of parliamentary news at least as early as they themselves in their homes in John O'Groats or Lands End.
  My second point is more fundamental. Why cannot Members of Parliament be much more involved in the formulation of policy? There will, of course, be occasions when policy arises from a sudden emergency, and it would be difficult for Members of Parliament to make a serious contribution to its formulation. Yet, as we all know, in many instances policy grows incrementally in civil service files, and through years of correspondence, public or private reports and similar channels. For example, the Child Support Agency owes at least some of its parentage to the Finer committee of 20 years ago.
  In many cases, there is nothing remotely worthy of a secret classification in such policy accretion; yet most Members of Parliament are kept in as much ignorance of it as would members of an anarchist movement. There is nothing remotely partisan about that. If the Labour party were ever to win an election, it would behave in precisely the same way. When I was a civil servant, one of the more entertaining jobs that I had to do was to draft replies to parliamentary questions in such a way that they were as true but as uninformative as possible. That that art is still alive and well in Whitehall is shown not only by the type of answers that one frequently elicits from Department, but by the frank admissions of the Cabinet Secretary to the Scott inquiry.
  I believe that the inability to find effective ways of involving Back-Bench Members of Parliament in the formulation, execution or monitoring of policy is an impoverishment of our parliamentary system. It is demeaning to Back Benchers and, in effect, to their electorates. It also cuts Government off from a mass of experience, prejudice and representative opinion which could add considerably to its strength in the legislative process. What is the point of fighting one's way to the difficult, insecure and relatively badly paid position of Member of Parliament if, when one has got there, one's view is given no more weight than that of the director of a voluntary organisation or pressure group? Indeed, one of the changes that have come over our politics in recent years is that it is no longer especially profitable for outside organisations to approach Members of Parliament, as they commonly can make direct approaches to Ministers, who seldom share what they hear with parliamentary colleagues.
  I realise that it is a tall order to ask Government to tackle such a matter. I know from my own observation just how time-consuming and frustrating it is to attempt even relatively minor changes in the way in which the establishment does its business. I also know, and pay tribute to, the very hard work put in by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster towards changing some elements in the public service culture.
  What is at stake here is fundamental to the health of the nation. If we cannot find a better way of deploying the energy and imagination of Back-Bench Members of Parliament, we shall pay a heavy price. The present
  254
  tendency of Members of Parliament to turn more and more to the minutiae of their constituents' grievances or to foreign travel or to concentrate on a handful of sectional interests, fuelled by the well-resourced research efforts of single-issue lobby groups, whose influence on national politics seems sometimes disproportionate to their representativeness, will become more pronounced and the quality of debate about issues that affect the whole nation will become even more attenuated.
  At first, that will be welcomed by Governments. They will find it ever easier to get their policies through without effective scrutiny and will be able to divide and rule with increasing ease. In the medium term, however, they will find it less satisfactory. It is indispensable to healthy democracy for Governments to carry Parliament with them. It is not enough simply to muster the necessary votes. The scrutiny of legislation is a part of winning support and at present it is woefully inadequate.
  The Hansard commission report on the making of legislation was trenchant on that point, among others. Indeed, that report deserves much closer attention than it seems so far to have achieved. I believe, for example, that both in consultation before a Bill is drafted and in such devices as pre-legislation committees after a Bill has been published, there are potential merits which ought to be explored. The other effect will be that our constituents will be ever more disengaged from what they will perceive as ineffective parliamentary procedures and into the gap so caused there may well step undemocratic elements.
  Our need to define more effectively a role for Back-Bench Members of Parliament has become even more pressing as a result of our membership of the European Union. The mechanisms in the House for scrutinising European legislation, no matter how fundamental its effects on this Parliament and no matter how much power that legislation may be sucking away from us, are avowedly ineffective. Why cannot Back-Bench Members be much more effectively deployed to help in that important and difficult task?
  I suggest that the time has come for all of us here including the Government, to take seriously that democratic deficit and to work on how it might be overcome. We might begin with the Hansard Society report on the making of legislation, together with the Jopling report, on which progresss is overdue. We shall need to go further, however, if we are to enter the 21st century fit to rule a modern society. I understand perfectly the argument that democratic politics cannot expect to be efficient in the way in which businesses aspire to be efficient, and I would not want our democracy even to try, but when 651 people have fought their way to Parliament against considerable odds and when they aspire to work here virtually full time it is expensive and unjustifiably incompetent to make such poor use of their talents.
  10.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has raised a number of interesting points about the way in which we conduct business in the House. It is useful for the House to be able to debate such issues from time to time—and not only to provide competition for commentators and academics for whom the subject has become something of a light

  255
  industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend on providing us with such an opportunity and on providing some fresh—very fresh—perspectives.
  Some of my hon. Friend's suggestions are procedural ones for the House itself to consider, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will take careful note of what has been said. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in particular, will do so. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond now to each of the points that he made, but I shall say something about the process of consultation prior to legislation, which was the starting point for the debate.
  Contrary to the criticisms that we sometimes hear, consultation is in fact the norm. Ministers and Departments will often consult widely whenever it is feasible and practical to do so prior to introducing legislation. It may be by means of consultation documents published specially for the purpose, by White or Green Papers, or by meetings with interested parties and groups. I can vouch for the fact that a great deal of time and effort are spent on such consultation. I cite just two examples from my own Department: we undertook a major consultation exercise prior to the science and technology White Paper "Realising our Potential"; and the Department is even now analysing and digesting the consultation responses that we have received to the White Paper on open government.
  In addition, there are examples from other aspects of the Government's legislative programme. I outline a few that are before the House at the moment. The Local Government (Wales) Bill, which is now being considered in another place, followed a full and thorough consultation process which included the publication of no fewer than three consultation documents inviting views. One document dealt with the proposed new structure of unitary authorities, another with the internal management and structures of the authorities, and the third with community councils. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales also established and chaired a special Welsh consultative council to consider those issues. All that took place well in advance of the publication of the Bill last December.
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill contains a number of specific deregulation measures which are the responsibility of a number of Departments. Individual Departments carried out consultation on their specific proposals for the Bill before its introduction. On the deregulation order-making power, the Bill requires that there should be consultation with all parties likely to be substantially affected before any draft order can be brought before Parliament. As the House knows, two new committees are to be created so that full and careful scrutiny can be given to the proposals at the draft stage.
  The two main parts of the Education Bill, which is also being considered in another place, were also the subject of wide consultation. On the teacher training proposals, a consultation document was sent to all institutions of higher education and others involved in teacher training in September last. A letter was sent to all schools inviting comment.
  On the proposals relating to student unions, a similarly wide consultation process was initiated in July of last year. Further consultation is now under way following the views expressed in another place, which perhaps proves that consultation does not always guarantee an easy passage.
  As the Member for Mid-Kent, my hon. Friend has been closely involved on behalf of his constituents in the
  256
  extensive consultation process on the route of the channel tunnel link. The consultation undertaken by Union Railways, the subsidiary of British Rail responsible for planning and operating the route, has been a major exercise involving some 650 meetings with local authorities and others, 90 exhibitions along the route and analysis of some 2,400 submissions and petitions.
  I know that my hon. Friend was actively involved in pressing upon the Government the case for the mid-Kent long tunnel option. As the House will know, further consultation is now under way on the route, concerning two locations where decisions are yet to be taken—Ashford and Pepper Hill.
  As I hope all that clearly demonstrates, much careful consultation takes place. It is open to any interested party to participate, either directly through the Department concerned or—more effectively, in my view—through the local Member of Parliament. Again, both as a Member of Parliament representing my constituents and as a Minister, on the receiving end, I can vouch for the fact that there is a constant flow of representation and comment on policy proposals from the Government.
  It is an essential part of government to listen to what is said and to take note of it. I assure my hon. Friend that the views and advice of Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House—this is not necessarily a party political point —are listened to carefully. I have a feeling that when people complain of lack of consultation what they sometimes mean is that the Government end up by taking a view different from their own, rather than that there was no opportunity to comment or to participate.
  On purely practical grounds, at a certain point the Government have to draw a line under the consultation process and to decide how to reflect the results in definite proposals or draft legislation. It is then Parliament's job to take a view of those proposals. It would be both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect further formal external consultation after that point, except perhaps the occasional consultation of experts on technical clauses. That is not, of course, to say that once a Bill has been published there is any reason why interested parties should not make their views known to Members of both Houses. They do, Members represent those views, and the process can be most effective in influencing policy.
  It will be clear from what I have said about the consultation process that I do not share my hon. Friend's picture of policy growing quietly and secretly in departmental files, only to spring fully formed on to an unsuspecting world. The process is more complex than that, and involves much discussion and public debate. Hon. Members can and do play an important part in it, and it is up to all of us to ensure that we do so.
  It is certainly true that, as my hon. Friend says, the advice that civil servants give Ministers in the process of policy formation is kept confidential. That is a constitutional convention of long standing which relates to the political neutrality of the civil service. But that is not to say that there is not ample opportunity for Members of the House and others to contribute to policy formation.
  No Minister that I know listens only to his civil servants, important though that may be. Indeed, from time to time, I have been sufficiently awkward with my civil servants to attract the occasional chastisement, of the most delicate kind. One once said to me, "Minister, you should

  257
  know that most good Ministers are difficult Ministers—but not all difficult Ministers are good Ministers." He made his point.
  The business of government is a political process as much as a managerial process. Certainly we should look to business and industry for lessons on how to streamline the processes of government—above all, perhaps, in delivering public services. My hon. Friend has acknowledged the great steps forward that we have been able to take in that respect. However, when it comes to political judgment and assessing the views of the House and of the country, the views of individual Members of Parliament, informed by close and detailed knowledge of their constituencies, are of course vital.
  As we were reminded only yesterday, the individual and personal views of hon. Members are paramount, and when the House considers fundamental matters of conscience and moral opinion, such as the law on homosexuality and on the death penalty, that is apparent. Similar free votes have taken place on abortion law and, more recently, on the principles of Sunday trading—the legislation on which was itself the outcome of a Back-Bench campaign that lasted a decade or more.
  My hon. Friend has made several points about the way in which the House scrutinises legislation. If I may say so, I believe that he underestimates the importance and effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. I should be the last to deny that there have been times, in the middle of a long morning's duty in a Standing Committee on a Bill, when I too have wondered whether the process could not be gingered up a little, and have felt that there could be a bit more scrutiny and a bit less political posturing. However, it is up to the members of the Committee to make their scrutiny effective, and in many cases they do.
  Few Bills emerge from a Standing Committee without any definite improvement. Some changes reflect political views of what law the country needs; others can result from the particular expertise or knowledge of members of a Committee. If the process seems to have involved a lot of political speeches, it is because making law is a political process, and important matters are at stake. There are genuine differences of view, and they need to be argued out.
  As a piece of machinery, our Standing Commitee system is basically sound. The Government are, of course, always ready to consider suggestions for improvement and my hon. Friend has given us some food for thought. However, it is up to Members to operate it effectively. Perhaps my hon. Friend is being too modest in describing the influence that Back Benchers have in that process, not least his own influence.
  My hon. Friend spoke about press briefings and statements to the press, the burden of which was that hon. Members are at a disadvantage compared with the media. I talked to two members of the media today and they put almost precisely the opposite viewpoint. It remains a
  258
  guiding principle that parliamentary papers and associated announcements are not released to the press before the House has been informed. However, it has also been a long-standing practice for advance material to be made available to the parliamentary media, but under a strict embargo to ensure that parliamentary privilege is not breached. That is purely a matter of logistics. The principle is one that the Government, as with Governments before them, take seriously and I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to uphold it.
  I take it that my hon. Friend referred not so much to major announcements but to lesser matters that do not warrant a statement in the House or a written answer. I sympathise with him over the difficulty of always keeping up with events when, on any one day, there may be a number of press releases or press conferences going on which involve various Departments. Such press releases are always made available to Members and are sent electronically to the parliamentary on-line information service, the House database, and therefore are accessible throughout the network, if my hon. Friend uses it. I was intrigued by what he said about the potential for using new technology in that context, and in the context of improving our communications generally. That is more a matter for the House authorities to respond to than for me, and I know that some hon. Members are as attached to our somewhat archaic and sometimes arcane ways as my hon. Friend is enthusiastic about modernising them. There are some useful pointers in what he said for further thought on those matters.
  While I would not agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said this evening—I do not think that he expected me to—I share his basic proposition that the House and the Government would be foolish not to draw on the knowledge, expertise and experience of all hon. Members. Members of Parliament are returned here on the basis of the views of constituencies of some 70,000 electors and I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers give great weight to that and treat their opinions and views with the seriousness that they deserve.
  My hon. Friend spoke at one point as if Members of Parliament were treated almost as automata, who were under the control of their party Whips. I speak carefully because there is a Whip on the Front Bench, but, as an ex-Whip, let me say that there have been times when I have been tempted to think "Would that that were so". I can assure my hon. Friend that it certainly does not feel like that from the Whips Office, and quite right too.
  The House is made up of 651 robust individuals whose position gives them a powerful say in what the Executive can and cannot do. The powers of the House are sovereign and they have the ability to upset the best-laid plans of Ministers and of Government, which no Minister ever forgets, and nor should any Back Bencher.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Privity of Contract
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to meet the British Retail Consortium to discuss its concerns regarding privity of contract.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Arrangements are being made for a meeting at the earliest convenient date.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North which was transferred to him by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concerning the seizure of arms from MV Inowroclaw.

  Sir John Cope
  I replied to this letter on Tuesday 22 February 1994.

  Regina v. Charrington
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by whom an application for public interest immunity was made in the case of Regina v. Charrington and others; and for what reason.

  Sir John Cope
  No public immunity certificates were signed by Ministers in this case.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department is taking to prevent money laundering, particularly with regard to profits from drug trafficking.

  Mr. Nelson
  Domestically, the Treasury has introduced the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, which come into force on 1 April. This legislation requires all financial institutions to identify all customers opening business relations with them or conducting large transactions, to keep records of identification evidence and of transactions for at least five years to assist any subsequent money laundering investigations, to train staff in anti-money laundering policies and practices, to report suspicions of money laundering to the authorities and to co-operate with those authorities on request. Together with the Criminal Justice Act 1993, these regulations implement the EC money laundering directive in the United Kingdom.

  Internationally, Treasury officials have been actively involved in the work of the financial action task force on money laundering—FATF—established by the 1989
  98
  economic summit. The FATF has developed a set of 40 recommendations designed to tackle all aspects of money laundering, and in particular the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking. The task force, to which 26 Governments now belong, is in the process of evaluating its own members to assess the effectiveness of their money laundering counter-measures. It has also developed a programme of international seminars and conferences with the aim of achieving the widest possible dissemination in all countries of its recommendations. The United Kingdom currently holds the presidency of the task force.

  The Treasury is also working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to improve the money laundering legislation in the United Kingdom's dependent territories.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers, and on what occasion and for what reasons, have signed public interest immunity certificates since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: There is no central record containing the information requested.

  European Funds (Wales)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts, expressed in pounds sterling, were received by Wales for each year between 1989 and 1993 from(a) the European regional development fund, (b) the European social fund, (c) the European agricultural diversification fund, (d) all other EU initiatives, including SPRINT, STRIDE and INTERREG and (e) in total.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Omasase Lumumba
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of prosecution in the case of the death of Omasase Lumumba.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service received a report from the Metropolitan police relating to the circumstances of the death of Omasase Lumumba and a transcript of evidence given at the inquest into the death and came to the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings against any person.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the Bosnian Muslim forces to demilitarise Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on these issues.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolutions 824 and 836, which set up the safe areas of
  99
  Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde, call for an end to attacks on and demilitarisation of these areas. We continue to urge all parties to comply fully with these resolutions. United Nations efforts also continue towards securing compliance.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last communicated with the Bosnian-Serb leadership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the meeting between European Union Foreign Ministers and the Bosnian parties on 29 November 1993. I attended a further such meeting on 22 December 1993.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the level of fighting between Muslim and Croat forces in central Bosnia during the past seven days; and what efforts Her Majesty's Government are making to try to secure a ceasefire between these armies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Fighting continues between Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Muslim forces in central Bosnia. Discussions are taking place between Croatia and the Bosnian Government, but so far there has been no agreement on a ceasefire. Bringing an end to this fighting is a high priority within the international efforts to bring about a political settlement in Bosnia.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to relieve the siege of Mostar; what representations have been made to the besieging Croat forces; and what plans there are to require the Croat forces to surrender their heavy weapons to the United Nations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The situation in Mostar is of grave concern. The European Union plan of action calls for Mostar to be put under European Union administration. Both the Bosnian and Croatian Governments have accepted this in principle as part of an overall settlement. Meanwhile, efforts continue to alleviate the humanitarian situation on the ground.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken through the European Union to prevent money laundering, particularly with regard to profits from drug trafficking.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In June 1991, the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers adopted a directive—91/308/EEC—on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering. It specifically requires prohibition of money laundering where the money laundered is the proceeds of drug trafficking.

  Member states were required to implement the directive by 1 January 1993. Provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1993, together with Her Majesty's Treasury's Money Laundering Regulations 1993, brought United Kingdom legislation into line with the directive.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position on international co-operation to prevent money laundering particularly related to the drug traffic.
  100
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 1988 United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances commits all signatories to introduce legislation against laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking, and measures to trace, freeze and confiscate these proceeds. There are currently 96 signatories, including the United Kingdom.

  The Council of Europe convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime was opened for signature in November 1990. The United Kingdom was the first country to ratify it on 28 September 1992. The purpose of the convention is to facilitate international co-operation in these areas against all types of crime, including drug trafficking.

  In addition, the United Kingdom has established bilateral agreements to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking with 29 countries.

  The United Kingdom also plays an active role in the financial action task force and holds the presidency this year. The FATF, which consists of all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development together with Hong Kong and Singapore, has drawn up 40 recommendations to prevent money laundering. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Limassol last October agreed, at the Prime Minister's initiative to call for the early implementation of the FATF recommendations throughout the Commonwealth.

  Turkey
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Turkish ambassador to discuss reports of ethnic cleansing of Kurdish areas of south-east Turkey.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the question of south-east Turkey when he visited Ankara on 19 and 20 January. He has no plans to meet the Turkish ambassador to discuss this subject.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and all supporting papers in the Library.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A copy of the 15 December version of the final act embodying the results of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations has already been placed in the Library. A copy of the definitive version of the final act, which will be signed in Marrakech in April, will be placed in the Library.

  Ngo Van Ha
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed repatriation to Vietnam from Hong Kong of Ngo Van Ha.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong determined that Ngo Van Ha was not a refugee on the basis of internationally accepted criteria, including the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of
  101
  refugees. In light of a submission made by Ha's lawyer last month, UNHCR is re-examining the case. It has undertaken not to repatriate Ha until these inquiries are complete.

  Housing Assistance Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 587, what are the criteria and rules applying to the housing assistance scheme advances, including the circumstances under which advances can be written off; what were the total amounts advanced under the scheme in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94; and how many staff were assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is as follows:

  The criteria and rules of the diplomatic housing assistance scheme

  To qualify for an advance of salary for house purchase diplomatic service officers must be buying, for the first time, a house within normal commuting distance from London or Hanslope Park. They may apply for the advance at any time during or after a substantive tour of duty abroad. Application must be made at the time of purchase.

  Repayment of the advance may be spread over a maximum of nine years following an initial three-year grace period. Any amount outstanding at retirement, resignation or death is recovered immediately.

  The advance is subject to a range of maxima—the highest of which is currently £10,500—related to current salary scales and in any case will not exceed the difference between the purchase price and the mortgage obtained.

  All applications must be supported by documentary evidence, normally in the form of a solicitor's letter indicating the purchase price of the property, the mortgage obtained and the expected completion date.

  Circumstances under which advances may be written off

  The officer must sign an undertaking to repay any outstanding balance on leaving the diplomatic service for any reason, or in the case of death. This is recovered by abating the accrued superannuation or death entitlement due to the officer. These entitlements are thus used as security when early recovery is required. In cases where this security is not sufficient, recovery would be pursued vigorously if necessary, including recourse to legal action up to the point where the cost of that might exceed the benefit of recovery, in accordance with the provisions of government accounting. But in fact no advance has been written off since the scheme was introduced in 1975.

  Total amounts advanced

  £

  Staff

  1992–93

  549,321·05

  66

  11993–94

  769,800·50

  90

  1 To date.

  The figures for the ODA scheme to which I referred in my reply of 19 January are:

  £

  Staff

  1992–93

  18,736

  2

  1993–94

  27,693

  3

  Military Equipment Sales
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries to which the United Kingdom has sold military equipment following upon intergovernmental discussion at 102
  a ministerial level and where a protocol or other memoranda have been drawn up linking overseas aid to the supply of military equipment or military services.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 25 January,Official Report, columns 145–46. I repeat that our aid programme is not linked to arms sales.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the qualifications required by his Department of a candidate for appointment as a health and safety officer at the grade of HPTO.

  Mr. David Davis
  When recruitment was centrally co-ordinated, with standardised entry criteria, the basic qualification for the grade of HPTO was a relevant degree plus two years' training/experience. In May 1993 authority to set appropriate eligibility criteria for non-scheduled grades—which includes HPTO—was delegated to Ministers in charge of Departments. Within my own Department there are no health and safety officers in the grade of HPTO.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Medical Research Council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current membership of the Medical Research Council is as follows:

  Sir David Plastow (Chairman)

  Sir Dai Rees FRS (Secretary)

  Mr. R. P. Bauman

  Professor Colin L. Berry

  Professor M. Bobrow

  Professor Alasdair M. Breckenridge FRSE

  Dr. K. C. Calman FRSE

  Sir Michael Carlisle

  Dr. J. T. Carter

  Professor M. Dexter

  Dr. Peter Doyle CBE

  Professor C. R. W. Edwards

  Professor John G. Evans

  Professor Robert E. Kendell CBE

  Sir Aaron Klug FRS

  Miss Emma Nicholson MP

  Professor John R. Pattison

  Professor Michael Peckham

  Professor Sir Michael L. Rutter CBE FRS

  Professor Sir David Weatherall FRS

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Economic and Social Research Council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current membership of the Economic and Social Research Council is as follows:

  Professor H. Newby, (Chairman) FRSA

  Ms J. Abramsky

  Professor M. Anderson, FBA, FRSE

  Professor V. Bruce, FBPsS

  Dr. W. Daniel

  Ms E. Filkin

  Professor J. Finch

  Professor R. Floud, FRHISTS

  103

  Mr. J. Fox

  Mr. R. Freeman

  Professor J. Goodman, CIPM

  Mr. N. Glass

  Miss C. Hancock

  Dr. J. Harbison, FBPsS, FPSI

  Professor D. Hargreaves

  Professor A. Hay

  Professor D. Kavanagh

  Professor S. Nickell, FBA

  Mrs. M. Tuck, CBE, FHRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what is the objective of removing equal opportunities requirements from private contractors for Government contracts.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 20 January 1994,Official Report, column 776.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art.

  Mr. Sproat
  The seven current members of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art are:

  Mr. Jonathan Scott (Chairman)

  Mr. Henry Fothringham

  Professor Francis Haskell

  Mr. Gervase Jackson-Stops, OBE

  Dr. Jennifer Montagu

  Mr. Jack Baer

  The Hon. Georgina Stonor, O.StJ.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the imperial war museum.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the imperial war museum are:

  Field Marshal Lord Bramall, KG, GCB, OBE, MC, JP (Chairman)

  HE The High Commissioner of the Government of Australia

  General Sir Peter de la Billiere, KCB, KBE, DSO, MC

  Admiral Sir Jeremy Black, GBE, KCB, DSO

  HE The High Commissioner of the Government of Canada

  HE The High Commissioner of the Government of New Zealand

  Mrs. Anne Heseltine

  HE The High Commissioner of the Government of India Sir Edward Jackson, KCMG

  HRH The Duke of Kent, KG, GCMG GCVO

  J. K. Ledlie, Esq

  Name of body

  Appointment of chairman by

  Appointment of members by

  Arts Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  British Film Institute

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  British Library

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage (12)

  Her Majesty The Queen (1)

  British Tourist Authority (BTA)

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Broadcasting Standards Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Crafts Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  English Tourist Board (ETB)

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Football Licensing Authority

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  104

  The Rt. Rev. Michael Mann, KCVO

  Professor Robert O'Neill, AO, DPhil

  HE The High Commissioner of the Government of Pakistan

  I. Jonathan Scott, Esq, FSA

  Dennis Silk, Esq, MA

  Major General George Sinclair, CB, CBE

  HE The High Commissioner of the Government of Sri Lanka

  Ian Smart, Esq

  Lady Vaizey

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the national gallery.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the national gallery are:

  Nicholas Hugo Baring, Esq (Chairman)

  Lady Airlie, CVO

  Alan Bennett, Esq

  Lady Bingham

  Bamber Gascoigne, Esq FRSL

  Mrs. Elizabeth Mari Monck

  Sir A. Derek M. Oulton, GCB QC MA PhD

  Sir Mark Richmond, ScD FRS

  Hon. Simon Sainsbury

  Sir Keith Thomas

  Peter Troughton, Esq

  Euan Uglow, Esq

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the natural history museum.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trusteese of the natural history museum are:

  Sir Walter Bodmer, KT FRS FRCPath (Chairman)

  Baroness Blackstone

  Raymond John Carter, Esq CBE

  Mrs. Jennifer d'Abo

  Professor Sir Brian Follett, FRS

  Sir Owen Green, KT

  Professor John L. Harper, CBE FRS

  Sir Denys Henderson, CBIM FRSA

  Sir Anthony Laughton, FRS

  Professor Robert McCredie May, FRS

  Dame Anne McLaren, FRS FRCOG

  Professor Sir Ronald Oxburgh, FRS

  Sir Crispin Tickell

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The following list contains details of those responsible for making appointments to the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of National Heritage.
  105

  Name of body

  Appointment of chairman by

  Appointment of members by

  Historical Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (English Heritage)

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  British Museum

  Trustees

  Her Majesty The Queen (1)

  Prime Minister (15)

  President of the Royal Society (1)

  President of the Royal Academy (1)

  President of the British Academy (1)

  President of the Society of Antiquaries of London (1)

  Trustees (5)

  Geffirye Museum

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage (4)

  Trustees (8)

  Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage (5)

  Trustees (10)

  Horniman Museum

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage (4)

  Trustees (8)

  Imperial War Museum

  Her Majesty The Queen (The President of the Board) Trustees (Chairman)

  Her Majesty The Queen (1)

  Prime Minister (10)

  Secretary of State for National Heritage (1)

  Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2)

  Government of Canada (1)

  Government of New Zealand (1)

  Government of Pakistan (1)

  Government of Sri Lanka (1)

  Government of India (1)

  Government of Australia (1)

  Museum of London

  Trustees

  Prime Minister (9)

  Corporation of London (9)

  National Gallery

  Trustees

  Prime Minister (13)

  Trustees of the Tate Gallery (1)

  Natural History Museum

  Trustees

  Prime Minister (8)

  Trustees (3)

  President of the Royal Society (1)

  National Maritime Museum

  Trustees

  Prime Minister (12)

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage (20)

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  Prime Minister

  Prime Minister (20)

  National Portrait Gallery

  Trustees

  Prime Minister (16)

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  Trustees

  Trustees (4)

  President of the Royal Society of Arts (1)

  President of Royal Society (1)

  President of the Royal Academy (1)

  President of the Society of Antiquaries of London (1)

  Corporation of London (1)

  Tate Gallery

  Trustees

  Prime Minister (11)

  Trustees of the National Gallery (1)

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Prime Minister

  Prime Minister (20)

  Wallace Collection

  Trustees

  Prime Minister (6)

  Millennium Commission

  Her Majesty the Queen

  Her Majesty the Queen

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Prime Minister

  Prime Minister (15)

  National Film and Television School

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  The Board on recommendation of the Secretary of State for National Heritage

  National Film Development Fund

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Prime Minister

  Prime Minister

  Registrar of Public Lending Right (PLR)

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage Her Majesty The Queen (2)

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

  Her Majesty The Queen

  Her Majesty The Queen

  South Bank Theatre Board

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Sports Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  106

ENVIRONMENT

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits abroad the Minister for Housing made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Sir George Young
  I made one departmental visit abroad during 1993. This was to Beirut, heading a construction industry trade mission. The cost to public funds was £2,147 and the purpose was to help win orders for United Kingdom construction companies in a competitive international marketplace.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits abroad the Minister for the Environment and Countryside made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Atkins
  My predecessors made 13 departmental visits abroad during 1993, at a total cost of £34,036. Details of the places visited and the purpose of each visit are set out.

  Place visited

  Reason

  Belgium (Brussels)

  EC Environment Council.

  Luxembourg

  EC joint Energy and Environment Council.

  Germany (Berlin) and

  BWIG conference "Wasser Berlin" and

  Switzerland (Zurich and Lucerne)

  "Environment for Europe" Ministers conference.

  Denmark (Copenhagen)

  Informal EC Environment Council.

  Luxembourg

  EC Environment Council.

  China and Japan

  British construction industry mission to China. Discussion of environmental and construction issues with new Japanese Government.

  Luxembourg

  EC Environment Council.

  Germany (Frankfurt and Bonn)

  Meeting with German Environment

  Minister about EC packaging directive.

  Belgium (Brussels)

  EC symposium on environment and development.

  USA (Los Angeles)

  To study United States approach to air pollution, energy management and the use of economic instruments.

  Belgium (Brussels)

  EC Environment Council.

  Denmark (Copenhagen)

  Intermediate ministerial meeting on the North sea.

  Belgium (Brussels)

  EC Environment Council.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits abroad the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Curry
  My predecessor made no departmental visits abroad in 1993. In my capacity as Minister for Local Government and Planning, I made two departmental visits abroad during 1993. These were to the Netherlands to attend an EC Council of Ministers meeting and to the United States to examine local government and planning practices and to discuss issues of mutual concern with my counterparts in the US Administration. The cost to public funds of these two visits was £10,590.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the number and (b) the total cost in 1992–93 of management agreements between English Nature and owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest to (i) compensate for profit forgone and (ii) facilitate positive conservation management.

  Mr. Atkins
  There were 1,840 such management agreements under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 at 31 March 1993, made up as follows:

  Number

  Agreements with compensatory payments—almost all of these also provided for positive conservation management. Payments were mainly on the basis of profit foregone, but a few agreements provided for lump sum payments

  1,510

  Agreements where the payments were for positive conservation management—including 120 agreements under the pilot wildlife enhancement scheme

  330

  Total

  1,840

  Payments under these agreements in 1992–93 totalled £7·5 million, of which £500,000 related to agreements for positive conservation. Information on nature reserve agreements has been excluded from the figures.

  Groundwork Foundation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations and individuals who have made representations to him regarding his Department's review of the Groundwork Foundation; if he will list its most frequent recommendations; and when these recommendations will be acted upon.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's internal review is looking at its sponsorship of Groundwork and the organisation's future direction. As part of the review, officials have met some of Groundwork's partners and customers among local authorities, private sector companies and voluntary organisations to learn how they perceive the organisation and would wish it to develop. This process is continuing but it is not envisaged that formal written representations will be invited.

  The review will inform our consideration of our future objectives for Groundwork and the resources to be made available to it in the context of the 1995–96 public expenditure round later this year.

  European Local Government Charter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now sign the European charter for local government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government do not intend to sign the European charter for local self-government. Local government is not a suitable subject for regulation by international convention, but the Government support the broad principles underlying the charter.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of properties under the control of each urban development corporation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total number of properties—the number of sites both with and without buildings on them —in which urban development corporations have a greater than 50 per cent. interest is as follows:

  UDC

  Properties

  Bristol

  42

  Black Country

  116

  Birmingham Heartlands

  4

  Central Manchester

  16

  Leeds

  31

  London Docklands

  124

  Merseyside

  109

  Plymouth

  18

  Sheffield

  30

  Teesside

  35

  Trafford Park

  100

  Tyne and Wear

  79

  TOTAL

  704

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties under the control of the development corporations in England and Wales have been victims to terrorist attacks since the establishment of the corporations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the development corporations in England and Wales and their dates of establishment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The urban development corporations in England and Wales and their dates of establishment are as follows:

  Date

  Merseyside

  25 March 1981

  London Docklands

  2 July 1981

  Trafford Park

  10 February 1987

  Cardiff Bay

  3 April 1987

  Tyne and Wear

  15 May 1987

  Black Country

  15 May 1987

  Teesside

  15 May 1987

  Leeds

  30 June 1988

  Sheffield

  30 June 1988

  Central Manchester

  30 June 1988

  Bristol

  19 January 1989

  Birmingham Heartlands

  10 March 1992

  Plymouth

  1 April 1993

  Research Contracts
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a list of current research contracts concerning any aspects of transport and the environment, giving costs and the names of consultants employed.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are 19 current research contracts which link aspects of transport with the environment. The total cost is £9·2 million.110

  Contract Title

  Contractor

  United Kingdom urban air quality research: policy support and programme management

  University of Birmingham

  United Kingdom atmospheric emissions inventory

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Diffusion tube survey of NO2, SO2, NH3 and hydrocarbons in urban and rural areas

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Diffusion tube surveys and statutory monitoring of smoke, SO2 and lead

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Statutory and urban long-term monitoring of NO2, O3, CO and SO2

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Air pollution forecasting

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  A catalogue of urban hydrocarbons

  University of Leeds

  United Kingdom atmospheric emissions from vehicles and fuels

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  The chemistry of NOx in urban air

  University of Birmingham

  The United Kingdom enhanced urban air quality monitoring network

  TBV Science

  Central management and co-ordination unit for the monitoring of gaseous hydrocarbons

  AEA Technology

  Urban air assessment box model

  Meteorological Office

  The quality of urban air review group—QUARG—secretariat

  University of Birmingham

  To define the possible economic effects of draft planning policy guidance note 13 on transport

  Land Use Consultants

  Viability and vitality of town centres

  URBED

  International experience of implementing planning policies for sustainable development

  UK CEED

  Intensification of development within existing urban areas

  Shankland Cox Ltd.

  Survey of public attitudes to the environment

  NOP Consumer Public Research—Mai Research Ltd.

  A study of the cost of complying with the petrol vapour recovery directive

  CHEM Systems

  Markets
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many town centre markets in each region he estimates will be affected by his proposal to deregulate markets.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the employment impact of his proposal to deregulate town centre markets.

  Mr. Baldry
  The provision in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill to remove from local authorities the right to object to rival markets will create new employment opportunities in the retail sector wherever local authority markets operate.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the effect on local authority income of his proposal to deregulate town centre markets.
  111
  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities were asked to provide this information as part of the consultation exercise last year, but we did not receive sufficient evidence to produce a reliable national estimate.

  Rent Assessment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to review the terms of reference of rent assessment officers; and when the existing terms of reference were introduced and last reviewed.

  Sir George Young
  When determining fair rents for regulated tenancies, rent officers and rent assessment panels follow the provisions of section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. When determining market rents for assured tenancies, rent assessment committees follow the provisions for sections 13 and 22 of the Housing Act 1988. When exercising their functions as regards housing benefit or home renovation grants, rent officers follow the provisions of the Rent Officer (Additional Functions) Order 1990, as amended, and section 110 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  The provisions are reviewed and amended from time to time as necessary.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the composition of rent assessment review bodies was last reviewed.

  Sir George Young
  The composition of rent assessment panels, from which rent assessment committees are drawn, is reviewed regularly. Members of the 13 panels in England, who currently number 480, are normally appointed for a three-year term, and a number of reappointments and new appointments therefore fall to be made each year.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many instances since the introduction of mineral planning guidance note 3 appeals against local authority refusals to agree opencasting have been allowed by his Department; and which local authorities were involved.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department's records show that the number of planning appeals granted for opencast sites were as follows:

  Planning Authority

  Number

  Barnsley

  2

  Derbyshire

  8

  County Durham

  16

  Gateshead

  2

  Lancashire

  1

  Leeds

  2

  Norfolk

  1

  North Tyneside

  1

  Northumberland

  6

  Staffordshire

  2

  Wakefield

  3

  Wigan

  1

  Total

  45

  112
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many instances since the introduction of mineral planning guidance note 3 the costs of appeals against local authority refusals to agree opencasting have been awarded against the local authorities; and what is the breakdown of such costs by authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not readily available. It could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many instances since the introduction of mineral planning guidance 3 the costs of appeal against local authority refusals to agree opencasting have been paid by his Department; and what is the total sum involved.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  New Forest
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he intends to apply when considering the granting of statutory power to the New Forest Committee; and what account he has taken in considering the granting of such powers of the New Forest Acts of Parliament.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our 1992 consultation paper set out the remit under which a statutory New Forest Committee might operate. They are that it could have a strategic role in co-ordinating the management of the wider New Forest area and could be charged to work with and through existing organisations in pursuit of the care and protection of the wider New Forest area and its enjoyment by the public. Responsibilities of the existing bodies concerned with the protection of the forest or the New Forest Acts would not be affected.

  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that any granting of statutory power and Government funding to the New Forest Committee will not diminish or threaten the continuance of the current New Forest Acts of Parliament.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes.

  City Grant
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs have been created in the city grant area of the Dearne valley since the commencement of the city grant schemes.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are three city grant projects in the Dearne valley currently under construction. As yet, no permanent jobs have been created, although it is expected that up to 400 will be created later this year following the completion of one of the projects and a further 1,800 when all three schemes are finished.

  In addition, between 60 and 100 jobs have been created during the construction period.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which engagements during the visit to Cornwall of the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and
  113
  Construction on Friday 25 February are being undertaken in his ministerial capacity; and what proportion of the cost of the visit is borne by the vote of his Department.

  Sir George Young
  The visit is party political and as such none of the cost will come from the Department's vote.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for extending compulsory competitive tendering to local authority professional construction-related and property services.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are today issuing a consultation document inviting comments on the Government's detailed proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to local authority professional construction-related and property services, including architecture, engineering, valuation and surveying services.

  When my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced to the House the Government's decisions on proposals to extend CCT to local authority white-collar corporate and professional services on November 10 1992, Official Report, column 744, he undertook that the Government would discuss details of implementing these decisions with representatives of local government and other interested parties. Since then, my officials have had very useful discussions with the local authority associations, the Audit Commission and Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on a number of joint working groups.

  Detailed proposals for CCT for the first of the new services to be brought into the CCT regime, local authority legal work, were issued for consultation last December. The paper issued today on professional construction-related and property services will be followed later this year by our detailed proposals for IT, finance, personnel and corporate and administrative services.

  Copies of today's consultation paper will be placed in the Library. It includes a definition of these services, indicating how much of this work local authorities will be required to subject to CCT. The definition includes all professional construction-related and property management work undertaken for the management, maintenance or development of local authority buildings and land, and we are seeking views on whether it should also encompass professional support to regulatory and enforcement work.

  As with the legal services, it also gives details of modifications which we intend to make to the statutory framework for competitive tendering to ensure that authorities will continue to be able to deliver services in a way which meets their own objectives and local people's aspirations.

  We propose that local authorities be permitted to carry out up to 35 per cent., by value, of all professional construction-related and property services work using their own staff without going through competition, subject to smaller authorities being able to retain a minimum of £450,000 worth of work in-house and free of competitive tendering. This recognises that certain work must be retained both to enable an authority to fulfil its democratic responsibilities and to act as an intelligent client for bought-in services.

  We propose that an authority will not be able to award any of the remaining 65 per cent. of work to their own staff
  114
  unless they have won it in fair and open competition. This requirement will be phased in over six months to allow authorities time to make proper preparations. We also intend to make provision to exempt professional work supporting construction or maintenance projects under way at the time at which CCT first bites to prevent undue disruption to work programmes.

  Following consideration of comments received on the proposals included in this consultation document, I will submit to the House the statutory instruments required under the Local Government Act 1988 to give effect to our proposals. I anticipate that CCT will take effect from 1 October 1995 in metropolitan districts and in London. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced on 17 December last year a modified timetable for white collar CCT, including construction-related services, in shire counties and districts which are subject to review by the Local Government Commission.

  Experience with the manual services already subject to CCT has shown that competition brings not only financial savings, but significant improvements in the management, efficiency and quality of public services. I fully expect that CCT will bring the same benefits to construction-related and other white collar work.

  Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will be taking to ensure that planning and transport policies are better co-ordinated to minimise damage to the environment and the nation's health.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to chapter 26 of the Government's "United Kingdom Sustainable Development Strategy", which sets out our overall approach. One key element will be planning policy guidance note 13—PPG13—"Transport". It will provide guidance on integrating and co-ordinating land-use planning and transport procedures. It will also suggest locational policies for local planning authorities to take into account in preparing their development plans. The aim is to meet the social and economic needs for access, with less need for travel and consequential air pollution.

  Medical aspects of air pollution are being explored by a number of independent groups that have been set up by the Government. These include the Committee on Medical Aspects of Air Pollution, the Advisory Group on Medical Aspects on Air Pollution Episodes and the expert panel on air quality standards.

  Canals
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support is currently available for the development and redevelopment of canals in the United Kingdom; and what was available in April 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The British Waterways Board, which is responsible for canals in England, Wales and Scotland, is receiving grant in aid of £49.3 million from my Department in the financial year 1993–94. Grant support in 1992–93 was £51·1 million. In addition, individual canal projects can be considered for my Department's derelict land grant and environment action fund schemes. Local authorities can assist in

  115
  maintaining and improving inland waterways, and financial support may also be available from EC structural funds.

  Rented Housing (Lettings)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the oral answer by the Minister for Housing to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 16 February,Official Report, column 936, if he will publish a table distinguishing the total number of lettings of rented housing expected to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, from the total expected output by housing associations in those three years.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The Housing Corporation's approved development programme provides new lettings of rented housing in two ways: new lettings provided by the rental programme; and new lettings freed up through the tenants' incentive scheme and 60 per cent. of the do-it-yourself shared ownership programme which helps existing housing association and local authority tenants to become full or partial owner occupiers. The Housing Corporation estimates that in the years 1993–94 to 1995–96 its approved development programme will provide new lettings for rent and for shared ownership as set out in the table.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  New lettings for rent

  42,800

  41,800

  31,900

  Properties freed up by:

  TIS

  6,300

  7,000

  7,000

  DIYSO (60 per cent. of total DIYSO)

  3,240

  2,820

  4,560

  Total lettings for rent

  52,340

  51,620

  43,460

  New lettings for shared ownership:

  DIYSO (40 per cent. of total DIYSO)

  2,160

  1,880

  3,040

  Low Cost Home Ownership

  3,100

  4,800

  5,000

  Total lettings for shared ownership

  5,260

  6,680

  8,040

  Total lettings for rent and shared ownership

  57,600

  58,300

  51,500

  Sheep Dip (Disposal)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list details and dates of all representations the Government have received from EU bodies concerning the Government's implementation of legislation covering the disposal of sheep dip, and the Government's responses to them.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The United Kingdom received a letter of formal inquiry from the European Commission dated 29 April 1993 to which a response was sent on 12 August 1993. This followed a prior informal letter dated 24 October 1991 to which we responded on 20 December 1991.

  Local Authority Support Services Costs
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the proposed new accounting framework for local authority support services cost, outlined in the consultation paper "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services", November 1991.
  116
  Mr. Baldry
  This Government are committed to bringing the benefits of competition to all public services. When he announced the Government's decision to extend compulsory competitive tendering to local authorities' professional and corporate services on 10 November 1992, column 744, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment also made clear he intended to require local authorities to account for the cost of these services under a rigorous and comprehensive statutory accounting framework.

  I am pleased to announce that my Department is today publishing a consultation paper setting out detailed proposals for requiring local authorities to prepare and publish a statement of support service costs. This statement, which will be published with an authority's annual accounts and be subject to audit, will illustrate the full cost, including overheads, of each of the professional and corporate services to the authority and show how this cost is borne by front-line service departments. A copy of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Requiring local authorities to publish the cost of procuring or providing support services will stimulate the challenging of these costs by both internal customers and by local taxpayers, and promote the development of fair competition and a proper choice between internal and external service providers. It will also, I believe, encourage comparisons between similar authorities, thus increasing pressure for greater efficiency and value for money.

  These proposals have been developed by Government following detailed discussions with representatives of local authorities, the audit and accounts commissions and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accoutancy. Consultation with local authorities and other interested parties will end on 29 April. The new requirement to keep an SSSC will be introduced by regulations made under section 23 of the Local Government Finance Act 1983 soon after that. The first authorities will be required to publish an SSSC for the financial year 1994–95.

TRANSPORT

  London Traffic (Security Measures)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments are being made by his Department on the impact on traffic flows in surrounding areas arising from the City of London's current security arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has made no formal assessment of the experimental traffic measures introduced by the City of London but is aware of the traffic monitoring at sites in the City and in five adjacent boroughs.

  Highway Inquiries
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce the outcome of his review of the rules governing highway inquiries.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My review has now been concluded and a consultation document on revised draft inquiry rules is being published today with a view to implementing revised rules in the summer. The public inquiry represents a key stage in the planning of a trunk road as it allows a
  117
  final decision to be made in the light of all information and arguments. The current 1976 and 1967 rules governing highway inquiries no longer represent accepted best practice. This means that proceedings can take longer than is necessary or desirable. This wastes time and money and can mean substantially higher costs for objectors.

  The consultation document, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, covers both highway inquiry procedures rules and compulsory purchase by Ministers inquiry procedure rules. There will be a three-month consultation period and I would welcome comments from anyone with an interest in the conduct of trunk road inquiries.

  British Rail
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the British Railways Board will be issuing guidance to BR staff on management-employee buy-out bids for franchisers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board, with the strong support of the Government, is keen to help its managers and staff to mount successful bids for passenger franchises. BR therefore issued guidelines to its staff on 3 February about the steps it is taking to help managers and staff wishing to mount management or management-employee buy-outs for franchises, including the pro vision of financial assistance, and to minimise potential conflicts of interest which may arise.

  Under these guidelines BR employees wishing to lead a possible MBO or MEBO are asked to inform senior management before talking to third parties, such as potential backers or joint venture partners. Having done so, and agreed to accept the guidelines, potential MBO-MEBO teams may talk to advisers, prospective partners and backers as soon as the arrangements for establishing the shadow franchise in question have been agreed by the board's restructuring committee and endorsed by the franchising director.

  Two guiding principles are established for giving access or information to franchise bidders. These are evenhandedness—the need for information provided to one bidder to be provided to all—and the need to ensure that the release of information is properly controlled and recorded. The guidelines set out detailed arrangements governing the provision of information, covering in particular the franchising director's important role in ensuring that the arrangements for the franchise competitions he holds are fair.

  The guidelines indicate that the board will decide whether it is necessary or expedient to provide substitutes or additional cover for the members of an MBO-MEBO team for the period in which they would be mounting a bid, in the light of discussion with the team, and after consulting the franchising director.

  The guidelines also indicate that the board will decide in each case whether it wishes to bid for a franchise and its intention, should the board win a franchise, to transfer the franchise company to the private sector as soon as possible after the franchise award.

  I welcome the issue of these guidelines, which make clear the British Railways Board's positive and helpful approach. I have placed a copy in the Library.
  118
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following are currently appointed to the British Railways Board: Sir Bob Reid; finance director, Mr. J. J. Jerram; technical director, Dr. P. Watson, OBE; full-time member, Mr. D. E. Rayner CBE; part-time members: vice-chairmen, Messrs. C. J. Campbell CBE and R. B. Horton; other part-time members: Messrs. P. D. Allen, J. K. Aziz, K. H. M. Dixon, C. W. Jonas, A. J. Norman, E. F. Sanderson, Miss K. Kantor and Miss J. A. Page.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the special bonus payments made to the previous chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Key
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1994, c. 719]: The previous chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency was appointed on 2 April 1990. He did not receive any payments under his performance bonus scheme in respect of his first two years in DSA. Payment in respect of the third year is still being considered. He did receive in 1993 a special bonus of £500 for his work on options for the future of the agency.

  Number Plates
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to regulate the sale of replacement number plates.

  Mr. Key
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is currently working with the British Standards Institution, the police and the number plate industry to improve the readability and durability of number plates. Manufacturers and suppliers of plates could be required to put their names and addresses on plates so that they can be traced.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the criteria by which the performance pay of the chief executive of the DVLA is determined.

  Mr. Key
  The chief executive is eligible for performance-related bonuses of up to 15 per cent. which currently depend on the agency meeting or exceeding targets relating to efficiency, vehicle excise duty enforcement and quality of service.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the grade of the chief executive of the DVLA; what is his basic salary; and what is the maximum amount of performance pay that he can achieve in a year.

  Mr. Key
  The chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is a grade 3 post. His basic salary is £51,360 per annum. He is eligible for performance related cash bonuses of up to 15 per cent. which depend on the agency meeting or exceeding specific targets, but not for the general performance bonus arrangements for civil servants at grade 3.
  119
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the chief executive of the DVLA has received in bonus pay since his appointment to the post; and for what reason such payments are made.

  Mr. Key
  The chief executive has received the following non-consolidated bonus payments: in the financial year 1991–92 a bonus of £750 in respect of personal performance in 1990–91; in the financial year 1992–93, a bonus of £2,250 in respect of personal performance in 1991–92; in the financial year 1993–94, a bonus of £5,782 for meeting the 1992–93 targets concerned with efficiency, VED enforcement and quality of service. The chief executive does not participate in the general performance bonus arrangements for civil servants at grade 3.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the current chief executive of the DVLA was appointed to his present position; and when his contract expires.

  Mr. Key
  The chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was appointed on 12 March 1990. His appointment expires on 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, since DVLA prosecuted section 8 cases, the total amount of fines, backduty and costs awarded.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Fines (£s)

  Section 9 Backduty (£s)

  Costs (£s)

  April-March 1990–91

  10,114,280

  6,267,337

  1,585,784

  April-March 1991–92

  11,847,904

  7,644,060

  2,479,567

  April-March 1992–93

  13,416,850

  8,786,816

  3,485,706

  April-January 1993–94

  14,954,417

  8,322,997

  3,757,913

  Total

  50,333,451

  31,021,210

  11,308,970

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year since its introduction the amount of revenue generated for the enforcement operations of DVLA by the use of the LOBS computer system; and if he will estimate for the next three years the amount expected.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: Revenue from all VED enforcement activities for the years since the local office branch system project began in 1985 are:

  Year

  Revenue raised £ million

  1985–86

  21·0

  1986–87

  23·1

  1987–88

  23·6

  1988–89

  25·6

  1989–90

  25·9

  1990–91

  27·5

  1991–92

  34·5

  1992–93

  37·5

  11993–94

  36·1

  1994–95

  —

  1996–97

  2—

  120
  1Figures to end January 1994.

  2Estimated similar year-on-year increase.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions there have been for violation of the construction and use regulations 1986 governing in-service emissions from motor vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  I regret the information is not available. The Home Office collects statistics relating to police prosecutions under the Construction and Use Regulations 1986; but they do not identify specific offences.

  However, the latest statistics published by the Department's vehicle inspectorate show that almost 2 per cent. of heavy goods vehicles, 2·5 per cent. of public service vehicles, and almost 11 per cent. of cars and other passenger vehicles initially fail the emissions check at their annual roadworthiness test.

  Roads, Warwickshire
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans exist to improve the crossing of the A5 in Warwickshire at Lilbourne-Clifton.

  Mr. Key
  There are no such plans.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider providing a means of access from the M45 to the A5 in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Key
  I have no plans to do so.

  US-UK Bilateral Air Agreements
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making in talks on the US-UK bilateral air agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom tabled a liberalisation proposal in December which goes much further than anything we have previously offered. It takes a phased approach offering immediate complete liberalisation of all UK-US services except those involving Heathrow and Gatwick and offers real commercial opportunities at those two airports.

  I hope that the United States will recognise our proposal as a serious one and agree to meet us around the negotiating table soon so that we can achieve a deal by 19 April, as agreed between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his United States counterpart last year.

  Road Traffic Accidents (Greenwich)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing the number of road traffic accidents involving injury to(a) vehicle users, (b) pedestrians and (c) all persons affected in the Greenwich town centre area in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Norris
  The information that is available is set out in the table; statistics are not kept for persons affected by accidents.
  121

  Road accidents and casualties on A200 and A206 within Greenwich town centre area (Romney road and westwards to junctions with Norman road)

  Year

  Total PI accidents

  Vehicle user casualties

  Pedestrian casualties

  1985

  98

  99

  17

  1986

  95

  101

  17

  1987

  75

  66

  23

  1988

  66

  60

  18

  1989

  99

  93

  25

  1990

  91

  71

  25

  1991

  76

  80

  15

  1992

  79

  65

  18

  11993

  51

  51

  11

  1 January to October.

  Motorists Charter
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to publish a motorists charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The new Highways Agency will be required to implement a road users charter to be published before the establishment of the agency at the beginning of April.

  Minibuses (Accidents)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the latest figures for road accidents involving each category of minibuses for each of the last three years in each(a) local authority and (b) police area.

  Mr. Key
  Police reports of injury road accidents involving minibuses and motorised caravans for the years 1990 to 1992 in police force areas are shown in the table. No more detailed analysis of these vehicles is collected. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  There are 461 London boroughs and local authority districts. An analysis of minibus and motorised caravan accidents at this level of detail is not readily available.

  Personal injury accidents involving minibuses/motor caravans, by police force area, 1990 to 1992

  Police area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Metropolitan police

  114

  136

  133

  Cumbria

  22

  28

  24

  Lancashire

  37

  39

  48

  Merseyside

  68

  77

  74

  Greater Manchester

  109

  93

  82

  Cheshire

  43

  37

  49

  Northumbria

  24

  20

  18

  Durham

  8

  17

  16

  North Yorkshire

  56

  34

  44

  West Yorkshire

  38

  30

  32

  South Yorkshire

  48

  40

  42

  Humberside

  28

  26

  25

  Cleveland

  19

  11

  4

  West Midlands

  51

  59

  55

  Staffordshire

  28

  23

  21

  West Mercia

  36

  18

  15

  Warwickshire

  8

  9

  14

  Derbyshire

  7

  6

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  32

  20

  16

  Lincolnshire

  40

  20

  27

  Leicestershire

  58

  27

  40

  Northamptonshire

  22

  25

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  32

  40

  33

  Norfolk

  51

  39

  26

  Suffolk

  11

  18

  15

  Bedfordshire

  13

  16

  17

  122

  Police area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Hertfordshire

  22

  18

  16

  Essex

  42

  51

  49

  Thames Valley

  52

  64

  65

  Hampshire

  77

  74

  75

  Surrey

  40

  26

  23

  Kent

  78

  79

  56

  Sussex

  63

  56

  63

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  58

  34

  47

  Avon and Somerset

  31

  48

  27

  Gloucestershire

  18

  23

  17

  Wiltshire

  8

  6

  20

  Dorset

  24

  27

  23

  North Wales

  41

  44

  34

  Gwent

  24

  25

  19

  South Wales

  51

  57

  65

  Dyfed-Powys

  27

  35

  32

  Northern

  27

  31

  26

  Grampian

  40

  18

  22

  Tayside

  17

  15

  14

  Fife

  20

  11

  11

  Lothian and Borders

  21

  36

  20

  Central

  9

  6

  14

  Strathclyde

  122

  88

  76

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  10

  5

  Total

  1,926

  1,790

  1,711

  Community Barge Project, Rotherham
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of the recent prosecution regarding the community barge project in Rotherham.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The cost of the prosecution was £1,221.

  M6
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the contraflow system in place during widening of the M6 in Cheshire is adequately and correctly signposted to ensure no last-minute lane changing on the southbound carriageway of the M6 at junction 21A and 21, when changes to the contraflow take place.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: Additional signs will be erected. I am satisfied that these arrangements will ensure that the contraflow system will operate satisfactorily.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on a cones hotline concerning the lack of signposting of the correct lane for access off the M6—southbound—to M56 on Sunday 13 February.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: I received one complaint.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with the widening of the M6 in Cheshire; and when he expects work to be completed.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: Work on the widening scheme started in November 1992. Good progress is being made and I expect the widening—including the refurbishment of the present Thelwall viaduct—to be completed in summer 1996.

  M4
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received via the cones hotline concerning the carriageway repairs to the M4 at Heston; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what progress is being made to the carriageway repairs of the M4 near Heston; and when he expects the work to be completed.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The M4 has provided sterling service since it was built nearly 30 years ago but now needs major refurbishment. Three representations have been made through the cones hotline about the carriageway works currently under way between Heston service area and Boston Manor road. These works, involving partial reconstruction of the concrete carriage-way followed by full overlay with bituminous material, started on 22 January and were expected to take 13 weeks. However, good progress is being made and, weather permitting, the works could be completed in a total period of about 10 weeks.

  Further works are planned between junction 4 and the elevated section for later this year to complete the refurbishment programme which will prevent the sort of failures experienced last year.

  These are part of a £30 million programme of essential works for the main radial routes in west London over the next 18 months. These works are necessary to keep the roads safe and serviceable, and to improve their appearance, but everything possible will be done to minimise any inconvenience to road users.

  A570
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made concerning the A570 Ormskirk bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: We are considering the large response to the public consultation. I shall announce a preferred route shortly.

  Marine Traffic
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by the European Union in(a) identifying sensitive areas which are at high risk from marine traffic and (b) developing measures to protect these areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Council of Ministers—Environment—on 28 June 1993 invited member states to identify environmentally sensitive areas at high risk from marine traffic, on the basis of criteria circulated by the Commission. The Commission is currently studying member states' responses. A joint meeting of Environment and Transport Ministers on 24 March, during the Environment Council, will review progress on this and other Community maritime safety and pollution initiatives.

  North Sea
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the Dutch Government's proposals for a system of marine protected areas for the recovery of sections of the marine ecosystem in the North sea; and if he will make it his policy to support their creation.
  124
  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Proposals to designate areas of the sea which would be required to remain undisturbed, in order to assess the way in which damaged marine ecosystems might recover, were considered at the intermediate meeting of North sea Ministers in Copenhagen in December 1993. The meeting, which included United Kingdom Ministers, invited the European Commission to collaborate with the International Council for Exploration of the Sea to investigate suitable scientific criteria for the establishment of such areas on an experimental basis.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Staff Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the schemes his Department operates to assist staff facing financial hardship following a transfer, showing(a) the particular criteria and rules applying to each one, including the circumstances under which any loans can be written off, (b) the total amount loaned or granted under the schemes in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94 and (c) the number of staff assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  Two schemes address financial difficulties brought about by the fall in house prices since 1989.

  1. Bridging Loans

  The Department may assist a member of staff transferred at the public expense who is in severe and immediate financial difficulties as a result of taking out a bridging loan which now exceeds the selling price of property.

  Provided the member of stafff cannot make good the shortfall of funds from his or her own resources and, that a value for money case can be clearly established, the Department can offer:

  An interest-free advance of up to 12 months salary repayable over 15 years; and/or

  An additional housing cost allowance to cover the interest charges on extra mortgage borrowing; and/or

  As a last resort where other options are not possible, to write off up to £5,000 of the bridging loan. Amounts in excess of this require Treasury approval.

  2. Mortgage Redemption (Negative Equity)

  Where staff transferred at the public expense face genuine financial hardship an advance of up to 12 months salary may be made, repayable over 15 years.

  The total amounts loaned or granted and the number of staff assisted are as follows:

  Bridging loan

  Mortgage

  1992–93

  Total amount loaned or granted (£)

  805,865

  192,000

  Number of staff assisted

  65

  23

  1993–94 (to date)

  Total amount loaned or granted (£)

  188,983

  123,000

  Number of staff assisted

  18

  21

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration the Government are giving to the question of occupational pension rights on divorce; and when he proposes to make a definitive statement of the Government's policy on this issue.

  Mr. Hague
  The Pension Law Review Committee considered the question of occupational pension rights on divorce as part of its wide-ranging review of pensions issues. We shall announce the results of our consideration of all the PLRC proposals in due course.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the newspapers and broadcasting advertisement campaigns undertaken by his Department in the last 10 years to make service men and former service personnel aware of their discharge rights to a war disablement pension.

  Mr. Hague
  None. There is no need for such publicity when arrangements exist for service men and women to receive full information about the war pensions scheme on their discharge from service. In addition, those invalided from service are automatically considered for a pension without having to claim.

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18 February at column 1010.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of income support payments to residents in care or nursing homes with preserved entitlement during(a) the current financial year, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1996–97; and if he will give his estimate of the total number of likely claimants for each year.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimates are:

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  Numbers

  (a)

  1993–94

  2,330

  246,000

  (b)

  1994–95

  1,830

  186,000

  (c)

  1996–97

  1,150

  112,000

  These estimates are based on assumed rates of decline and become progressively less reliable.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were in receipt of income support payments towards the cost of(a) residential care,
  126
  (b) higher rate residental care and (c) nursing homes for each year since 1990; and if he will give the annual total for each category.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is as follows:

  Numbers of income support claimants

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  1990

  127,000

  66,000

  1991

  139,000

  94,000

  1992

  152,000

  116,000

  1993

  159,000

  123,000

  Source:

  The Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries May 1990, May 1991 and May 1992.

  The Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry February 1993.

  Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most recent estimate of the gap between assets and liabilities of(a) the Maxwell pension funds in general and (b) the AGB fund; and if he will make a statement on current and prospective provision for Maxwell pensioners.

  Mr. Hague
  On the basis of information supplied by the pension scheme trustees, the Maxwell pensions unit estimates the current overall gap between the assets and liabilities of the Maxwell pension funds to be £380 million. Included within this figure is £25 million in respect of the AGB pension scheme. Some of the scheme trustees are in the process of updating their scheme records and refining their liability figures.

  This Department is currently paying over £3 million per annum in guaranteed minimum pensions to Maxwell pensioners. The Maxwell Pensioners Trust has kept pensions in payment while assets recovery work continues.

  Child Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to revise the current provisions in the Child Support Act 1991 to enable capital settlements to be taken into account in future in the assessments made to determine the financial liability of separated parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs Prentice) on 6 December 1993 at column 109.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received to date complaining that capital settlements are not taken into account in determining the liability of separated parents in the child support legislation.

  Mr. Burt
  Ministers have received representations from hon. Members, organisations and members of the public about various aspects of the child support scheme. Information about how many refer to a particular aspect is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Elderly Population
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change is projected in the population of those aged(a) over 65 years, (b) over 75 years and (c) over 85 years in each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his answer 11 February 1994, col. 499]:] The information provided contained two errors. The estimate of the number of people aged 75 and over in 1994 should read 3,892,000 and the estimate of the number of people aged 85 and over in 1994 should read 1,002,000.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people receiving invalidity benefit or previous comparable benefits for each of the present parliamentary constituencies in Wales and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 21 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of people receiving Invalidity Benefit or previous comparable benefits for the parliamentary constituencies in Wales and for Wales as a whole.

  The information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because the Agency's District boundaries do not correspond with parliamentary constituencies.

  However, the information for Wales as a whole is available. The number of customers in receipt of Invalidity Benefit in Wales at 4 April 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, was approximately 159,000. The statistics are based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  Within the Wales Area Directorate there are 11 Districts. Appendix 1 shows the number of people claiming Invalidity Benefit at the last working day of April 1992 within each District in Wales. The figures were obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in each office within each District and include a small number of people who have claimed but are not receiving Invalidity Benefit, eg. because there is underlying entitlement which has been extinguished by the payment of a higher overlapping benefit.

  I have attached at appendix 2 a list of Districts within the Wales Area Directorate and the parliamentary constituencies which fall within each Districts area.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix 1

  Number of people claiming invalidity benefit at the last working day of April 1992

  Benefits agency district

  Number

  Gwyneddigion

  8,720

  North Wales Coast

  11,375

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  8,575

  West Wales

  17,543

  Swansea

  15,362

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  19,505

  South Glamorgan

  13,915

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  12,432

  Cynon, Merthyr and Rhymney Valley

  21,063

  Taff Rhondda

  16,229

  North Gwent and Brecon

  14,844

  Total

  159,563

  128

  Appendix 2

  Benefits agency district

  Parliamentary constituencies

  Gwyneddigion

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  Caernarfon

  Conwy

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  Ynys Mon

  North Wales Coast

  Alyn and Deeside

  Clwyd North West

  Clwyd South West

  Delyn

  Conwy

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  Alyn and Deeside

  Clwyd South West

  Delyn

  Wrexham

  Brecon and Radnor

  Montgomery

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  West Wales

  Carmarthen

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  Llanelli

  Pembroke

  Gower

  Neath

  Swansea

  Gower

  Neath

  Swansea East

  Swansea West

  Brecon and Radnor

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  Bridgend

  Ogmore

  Aberavon

  Neath

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff Central

  Cardiff North

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  Cardiff West

  Vale of Glamorgan

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  Islwyn

  Monmouth

  Newport East

  Newport West

  Cynon, Merthyr and

  Caerphilly

  Rhymney Valley

  Cynon Valley

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  Taff Rhondda

  Cynon Valley

  Ogmore

  Pontypridd

  Rhondda

  North Gwent and Brecon

  Blanau Gwent

  Monmouth

  Torfaen

  Brecon and Radnor

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims have been submitted for disablement benefit' for chronic bronchitis and emphysema;

  (2) how many claims for disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been allowed in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) by region and (c) by social security district.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of industrial disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Allan Rogers, dated 21 February 1994:
  129
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking about the number of claims received nationally for disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema and how many have been allowed.

  Firstly, I would like to explain that there are two stages to the take on of claims for disablement benefit for prescribed disease D12 (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) which has been available since 13 September 1993 for people who have worked at least 20 years underground in a coal mine.

  Stage I was restricted to claims from people who were aged 70 or over on 13 September 1993 or who had an award of higher rate Disability Living Allowance Care component or higher rate attendance allowance and will end shortly; stage 2 will commence on 1 March 1994 and is open to anybody to claim. All claims will be considered for payment from 13 September 1993.

  As of 13 February 1994, the number of claims received by the Benefits Agency was 23,477 (In addition, there were claims received which were not proceeded with for various reason for example the claim was not appropriate to Stage 1, where the claimant would be advised to reclaim at the proper time).

  1–13 per cent.

  14–24 per cent.

  25–34 per cent.

  35–100 per cent.

  Total

  South East Area1

  0

  1

  1

  18

  20

  South Yorkshire and Humberside Area1

  0

  27

  50

  270

  347

  Tyne Tees Area

  Blyth

  0

  5

  7

  35

  47

  Sunderland North

  0

  0

  3

  11

  14

  Bishop Auckland

  0

  0

  4

  12

  16

  Eston

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Houghton-Le-Spring

  0

  1

  4

  29

  34

  Jarrow

  0

  0

  10

  26

  36

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0

  0

  2

  10

  12

  North Durham

  1

  3

  19

  121

  144

  North Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Sunderland South

  0

  0

  3

  15

  18

  Total

  1

  9

  52

  263

  325

  Wales Area Ammanford

  1

  6

  15

  64

  86

  Cynon Merthyr and Rhymney Valley

  9

  35

  35

  127

  206

  Gwyneddigion

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  0

  3

  2

  12

  17

  North Wales Coast

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ogwy Afan Nedd

  3

  18

  23

  79

  123

  Pontypridd

  3

  17

  19

  71

  110

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  0

  11

  1

  43

  55

  Swansea

  0

  5

  9

  38

  52

  Cwmbran

  1

  8

  6

  20

  35

  Total

  17

  103

  110

  456

  686

  West Country Area Barnstaple

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bridgewater

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sevemside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Torbay

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Truro

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  West Mercia Area Cannock

  0

  2

  2

  39

  43

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ilkeston

  1

  0

  1

  11

  13

  North Staffordshire

  0

  11

  10

  86

  107

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Smethwick

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Derbyshire

  0

  1

  1

  12

  14

  West Bromwich

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  130
  The attached tables show the number of medical assessments which had been carried out at 6 February 1994. The table breaks the assessments of disablement down by 13 per cent. or less, 14–24 per cent., 25–34 per cent., and 35 per cent. or more; and the total number of assessments. It should be noted that there are a number of the claims stated above which have not reached the assessment stage so the total number of assessments shown will increase in time.

  As with most prescribed occupational diseases, disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema is not paid for assessments under 14 per cent. The very few assessments of 13 per cent. or less therefore did not attract an award of disablement benefit, unless it was possible to aggregate them with existing assessments.

  The Benefits Agency is organised into Areas, each consisting of a number of Districts. In some parts of the country claims for chronic bronchitis or emphysema have been handled at special Centres covering a number of Districts. The tables show totals for each Area and for each Centre or District within the Area.

  I hope you will find this information helpful.
  131

  1–13 per cent.

  14–24 per cent.

  25–34 per cent.

  35–100 per cent.

  Total

  Total

  1

  14

  14

  153

  182

  Grand Total

  23

  200

  295

  1,603

  2,121

  1 Covered by one centre.

  1–13 percent.

  14–24 per cent.

  25–34 per cent.

  35–100 per cent.

  Total

  Greater Manchester Area1

  0

  02

  3

  14

  19

  Lancashire and Cumbria Area

  Accrington

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Barrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blackpool

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Bolton

  0

  2

  0

  6

  8

  Bumley

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Preston

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Whitehaven

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Wigan/Leigh

  0

  5

  8

  35

  48

  Total

  1

  7

  8

  49

  65

  Merseyside Area

  Crewe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool Edgehill

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool Kirby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West Lancashire

  0

  2

  4

  13

  19

  Southport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  2

  4

  13

  19

  Midlands South West Area

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Birmingham Handsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  1

  0

  4

  5

  Nuneaton

  0

  2

  0

  23

  25

  Redditch

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  3

  0

  27

  30

  North and West Yorkshire Area1

  1

  21

  25

  134

  181

  North, Central and West Scotland Area

  Ayr

  0

  0

  1

  8

  9

  Kilmarnock

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Clyde Valley

  0

  0

  5

  5

  10

  Coatbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Highlands and Islands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  6

  14

  20

  1 Covered by one centre.

  Assessments for chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema (prescribed disease D12)

  1–13 per cent.

  14–24 per cent.

  25–34 per cent.

  35–100 per cent.

  Total

  Hertford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lowestoft

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norwich Chantry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Watford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total Anglia area

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Euston

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Luton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxford Tyndale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total Chilterns area

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  0

  6

  7

  55

  68

  East Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  2

  12

  14

  Grantham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicester Tower Hill Street

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Loughborough

  0

  2

  1

  3

  6

  North Nottinghamshire

  1

  2

  5

  67

  75

  Skegness

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  132

  133

  1–13 per cent.

  14–24 per cent.

  25–34 per cent.

  35–100 per cent.

  Total

  Nottingham David Lane

  0

  0

  1

  10

  11

  Total East Midlands area

  2

  10

  16

  149

  177

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  4

  19

  23

  Lothian West

  0

  0

  0

  7

  7

  Lowland East

  0

  0

  2

  14

  16

  Total Midlands area

  0

  0

  06

  40

  46

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Anniesland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Springbum

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total Glasgow area

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many male and female employees of the Child Support Agency there are at each of its regional offices.

  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 Mr. D. Brown to Mr. David Jamieson, dated 22 February 1994:

  In Mrs. Hepplewhite's absence I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about staffing levels in the Child Support Agency's regional offices.

  At 31 January 1994, the six regional Child Support Agency Centres have a total of 1,039 male, and 2,308 female employees, distributed as follows:

  Centre

  Male

  Female

  Belfast

  155

  305

  Birkenhead

  209

  380

  Dudley

  177

  436

  Falkirk

  151

  401

  Hastings

  206

  387

  Plymouth

  141

  399

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for crisis loans made at Jubilee house, Stratford, have been refused in the last two years.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 21 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of Crisis Loan (CL) applications refused at Stratford Benefits Agency Office in the last two years.
  134
  The Newham Benefits Agency District is made up of Stratford, Canning Town and Plaistow benefit offices. Statistics are collected on a District basis and so I am unable to give you figures in isolation for Stratford.

  Details of the number of new CL applications received and refused in the Newham District during the last two financial years (1991–92 and 1992–93) are shown below.

  Number of Crisis Loan Applications Received and Refused at Newham District.

  April 1991 to March 1992

  April 1992 to March 1993

  Number of Crisis Loan applications

  3,088

  4,447

  Number refused

  48

  78

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of individuals who have transferred their assets from one personal pension plan to another provided by a different company.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The estimated number of people who transferred protected rights from one appropriate personal pension plan to another, whether provided by a different company or not, between the financial years 1987–88 and 1991–92 was 16,400.

  (Figure based on 1 per cent. sample of the national insurance record system records).

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to use members of the reserve forces in support of current operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  A need has been identified for a further small number of specialist Royal Air Force volunteer reserve personnel to serve on photographic interpretation duties in the United Kingdom in support of operations in Bosnia. One volunteer will be deployed immediately, and additional support will be required as the tasking develops. A maximum of four people will be required. These personnel are all volunteers; they are being called out under section 11(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. This will be in addition to the seven reserve personnel already called out in support of operations.
  135

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the state of readiness of HMS Intrepid; and how long it will take to make the vessel operational;

  (2) what is the state of readiness of HMS Fearless; and how long it will take to make the vessel operational.

  Mr. Hanley
  HMS Intrepid is at present held in a state of extended readiness at Portsmouth. For operational security reasons, we would not discuss how long it would take to reactivate her from this state, but the planned response time would be consistent with our new assumptions about warning times. HMS Fearless is currently fully operational.

  Military Bands
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 485, what is his policy towards the attendance of military bands at events organised by political parties; and if he will list the occasions of such performances over the last two years showing the costs charged to the organisers and the total cost of attendance by military personnel in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military bands are not permitted to perform at events organised by, or on behalf of, a political party. Individuals may, however, accept engagements in their spare time, provided civilian clothes are worn.

  On the occasion referred to in my answer of 10 February, Official Report, column 485, members of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (Volunteers) Band did appear at Alton castle in uniform but they were not aware this was a politically sponsored event. However, this was still in breach of regulations and a reminder of the regulations is being sent to all bands as a result.

  I am not aware of any other occasion on which members of a military band have attended such an event in uniform.

  Britannia Royal Naval College
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much extra public money is being spent to garage the captain of the Britannia royal naval college's car and on building kennels for three dogs at the college in Dartmouth, Devon.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of relocating the commanding officer's garage at Britannia royal naval college will be met from within the existing property maintenance budget. This work has been made necessary by a security audit which recommended that the garage must be more than 75 ft away from the residence. The cost of the work undertaken to prepare the site and to house the five Ministry of Defence police guard dogs at Britannia royal naval college was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on 7 February 1994,Official Report, column 118.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what publications have so far been made under the United Nations agreement to compile a register of arms sales; and when such publications are expected in future.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Nations Secretary-General issued last year a report on the 1992 national returns to the 136
  United Nations register of conventional arms. We expect that he will report on the 1993 returns later this year. A copy of the United Kingdom's 1992 return to the United Nations register was placed in the Library of the House in May 1993.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total public funding provided under all the provisions of the memorandum of understanding with Malaysia.

  Mr. Aitken
  There is no net cost to public funds of services provided under the memorandum of understanding with Malaysia.

EDUCATION

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what adjustment was made in the standard spending assessment for 1994–95 for educational purposes arising from the reduction of section 11 funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  When the additional educational needs index within education standard spending assessments was reviewed, allowance was made for the proposed reduction in section 11 funding in two ways. The weight accorded to the index was increased and, within the index, the weight accorded to the ethnicity factor was increased.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to make any changes in the standard spending assessment for education purposes for the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  As part of his consideration of future policy for under-fives, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind possible implications for standard spending assessments.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about membership of the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Mr. Patten
  I appointed Sir Christopher Benson as chairman-designate of the Funding Agency for Schools on 14 October 1993. I am announcing today the appointment of the following 12 members:

  Shailendra Adwalpalkar—Finance Director, Gillette International, AMEE Group.

  Sir Robert Balchin—Chairman, Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation.

  Canon Gerald Greenwood—Director of Education, Southwark Diocesan Board of Education.

  Dr. Arthur Hearnden OBE—General Secretary, Independent Schools Joint Council.

  Stanley Kalms—Chairman of the Dixons Group.

  Lee Karu—Barrister.

  Mrs. Jacqueline E. Kearns MA FRSA—Headteacher, Homewood GM School, Tenterden, Kent.

  Mrs. Lesley King—Headteacher, St. Joseph's RC GM Primary School, Aldershot.

  Mrs. Pauline Latham—Chairman of Governors, Ecclesbourne GM School, Derbyshire.
  137
  Councillor Edward Lister—Leader of Wandsworth Council.

  Brother Francis Patterson—Headteacher, St. Francis Xa.vier's College, GM School, Liverpool.

  Peter Turner OBE—Recently retired Head, Whitefield Schools and Centre, Waltham Forest.

  The task of the funding agency in supporting the successful development of the self-governing—grant-maintained—school sector is a vital one. The chairman and the members whom I am appointing today will bring an impressive breadth of experience to that task. I intend to appoint two additional members in due course in the light of the needs of the funding agency as the work develops and as the self-governing—grant-maintained—school sector grows.

  From its formal establishment on 1 April, the funding agency will assume responsibility for two key functions: first, the payment and monitoring of grants to grant-maintained schools; and, secondly, a progressively increasing share in the planning and provision of school places across the country, as the number of grant-maintained schools grow.

  I am writing today to the chairman and members setting these functions in the context of the Government's overall policies to secure the realisation of our vision of mainly self-governing schools; to increase choice and diversity in our schools; and to improve standards of education in this country.

  I am sending copies of the letter to all self-governing schools and placing copies in the Library.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much the Funding Agency for Schools cost to set up; how much it will cost to run; and what role it will take on in Calderdale.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The direct costs of establishing the Funding Agency for Schools will amount in the current financial year to some £1·5 million. The running costs of the funding agency will depend on a number of factors, including growth in the number of GM schools, but on the basis of current forecasts will be of the order of £12 million in 1994–95, subject to parliamentary approval of the main estimates.

  The first main function of the funding agency will be to calculate and pay grant to grant-maintained schools, including those in Calderdale, on the basis of regulations made by my right hon. hon. Friend who announced on 14 February his intention to introduce a common funding formula for funding GM secondary schools in Calderdale and four other LEAs in 1994–95.

  In addition, under section 12 of the Education Act 1993 the Secretary of State may make an order giving shared responsibility for the provision of sufficient school places in primary or secondary schools to the funding agency, in areas where between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils attend GM schools in the relevant phase. Calderdale is one such area and we are presently consulting with the intention of making an order.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list local education authorities according to the date on which the first parents' ballot in favour of grant-maintained status in each authority took place.
  138
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The tables show local education authorities in which there have been parental ballots in favour of grant-maintained status, listed in order of the date of the earliest yes vote.

  LEAs with schools voting in favour of GM status, in order of first "Yes vote".

  LEA

  Vote date

  Lincolnshire

  2 November 1988

  Bolton

  7 November 1988

  Tameside

  5 December 1988

  Sutton

  16 December 1988

  Bedfordshire

  21 December 1988

  Kent

  21 December 1988

  Kirklees

  22 December 1988

  Hammersmith

  29 December 1988

  Barnet

  30 December 1988

  Southwark

  9 January 1989

  Bromley

  17 January 1989

  Derbyshire

  17 January 1989

  Cheshire

  26 January 1989

  Hertfordshire

  30 January 1989

  Northamptonshire

  3 February 1989

  Birmingham

  6 February 1989

  Devon

  10 February 1989

  Dorset

  18 February 1989

  Lancashire

  24 February 1989

  Dudley

  27 February 1989

  Liverpool

  27 February 1989

  Wigan

  6 March 1989

  Avon

  13 March 1989

  Kensington

  13 March 1989

  Surrey

  23 March 1989

  Gloucestershire

  28 March 1989

  Leicestershire

  31 March 1989

  Brent

  3 April 1989

  Hillingdon

  20 April 1989

  Berkshire

  30 May 1989

  Solihull

  30 May 1989

  Wolverhampton

  12 June 1989

  Newham

  26 September 1989

  Shropshire

  9 November 1989

  Calderdale

  18 December 1989

  Buckinghamshire

  2 January 1990

  Essex

  9 May 1990

  Norfolk

  8 June 1990

  Hampshire

  27 June 1990

  Sandwell

  17 September 1990

  Bradford

  22 October 1990

  Warwickshire

  23 October 1990

  Somerset

  16 November 1990

  Cumbria

  4 December 1990

  Wandsworth

  4 December 1990

  Wiltshire

  4 December 1990

  Ealing

  4 February 1991

  Cambridgeshire

  21 February 1991

  Humberside

  1 March 1991

  Waltham Forest

  1 March 1991

  Rochdale

  2 March 1991

  Tower Hamlets

  18 March 1991

  Lewisham

  25 March 1991

  Nottinghamshire

  14 May 1991

  Croydon

  20 May 1991

  Wakefield

  20 May 1991

  Barnsley

  30 May 1991

  Cornwall

  7 June 1991

  Lambeth

  26 June 1991

  Walsall

  7 November 1991

  Sheffield

  12 November 1991

  Bexley

  26 November 1991

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  29 May 1992

  Staffordshire

  6 July 1992

  Havering

  11 September 1992

  Hereford and Worcester

  20 October 1992

  Trafford

  21 October 1992

  Hackney

  27 October 1992

  Hounslow

  27 October 1992

  Doncaster

  2 November 1992

  Oxfordshire

  16 November 1992

  139

  LEA

  Vote date

  Enfield

  4 December 1992

  Wirral

  14 December 1992

  Salford

  15 December 1992

  Knowsley

  24 December 1992

  Redbridge

  28 December 1992

  Camden

  11 January 1993

  Harrow

  28 January 1993

  North Tyneside

  2 March 1993

  Bury

  16 March 1993

  Greenwich

  18 March 1993

  St. Helens

  22 March 1993

  Northumberland

  2 April 1993

  Leeds

  26 April 1993

  West Sussex

  31 January 1994

  North Yorkshire

  11 February 1994

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure in respect of tuition fees for undergraduate courses in institutions of higher education in 1992–93; and how much of this was for students not qualifying for a mandatory maintenance award on grounds of high parental income.

  Mr. Bos well
  Figures for total expenditure in the academic year 1992–93 by local education authorities in England and Wales on fees paid by them as part of mandatory awards for students attending first degree courses are not yet available. However, final data for the academic year 1991–92 are now available. Total expenditure in that year was £1,012 million. It is not possible to estimate how much of this expenditure was for students not qualifying for a mandatory maintenance award on grounds of high parental income. However, 27 per cent. of all first degree students in receipt of a mandatory award received no maintenance grant as a result of means testing.

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the estimated cost of a surplus place in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The average cost of maintaining a school place in terms of premises alone is estimated to be £179 a year for primary school and £298 a year for a secondary school at 1994–95 prices.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest information regarding the number of surplus places in each local education authority in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on Monday 31 January,Official Report, columns 517–21.

  Primary Schools
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask me Secretary of State for Education how he defines open enrolment in primary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All parents have the right to state a preference for their choice of primay school. The more 140
  open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 mean that schools must admit pupils on demand until they are full. Each primary school has a standard number for admissions, or an approved admission number in the case of grant-maintained schools, which reflects the school's previous levels of intake or its physical capacity as measured against a prescribed formula.

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schemes his Department operates to assist staff facing financial hardship following a transfer, showing(a) the particular criteria and rules applying to each one, including the circumstances under which any loans can be written off, (b) the total amount loaned or granted under the schemes in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94 and (c) the number of staff assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  Prior to October 1992, the Department operated a special scheme agreed with the Treasury to deal with a small number of financial hardship cases involving large bridging loan shortfalls. The terms of the scheme were:

  (i) that the Department would meet the first £5,000 of any shortfall;

  (ii) that individual members of staff would contribute, either in cash or through an advance of salary, up to the value of one year's salary, reduced by 10 per cent. for each year by which an officer exceeded 50 years of age;

  (iii) the Department met the balance.

  Any advance of salary was interest free, repayable over 15 years with the option of deferring the first payment for two years.

  Advances were made to eight staff under this scheme in 1992–93 totalling £112,337 and to four staff in 1993–94 totalling £70,471. These staff and one other benefitted from the arrangements in respect of shortfalls. Payments totalling £258,384 were written off in 1992–93, with a further £25,703 written off under the scheme in 1993–94. The expenditure was variously met by the Department and, following its creation in September 1992, by the Office for Standards in Education in respect of former members of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.

  Since October 1992, the Department has used the services of a relocation company which eliminates the need for bridging finance. However to assist staff with negative equity shortfalls, it may offer an interest bearing loan up to the limit of the mortgage shortfall, repayable over 12 years. In those cases where staff would face extreme financial hardship as a result of being asked to pay interest on the loan, the advance may be made interest free. No staff in the Department have yet received a loan under this scheme.

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18 February,Official Report, column 1010.
  141

  LEA Schools
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much(a) capital and (b) revenue money has been spent by local education authority schools; and how many pupils attended a local education authority school in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest available information on spending and pupil numbers at LEA-maintained schools is given in the table.

  Recurrent spending (£ million)

  Capital spending (£ million)

  Pupil numbers (Thousands)

  1982–83

  6,543

  291

  7,641

  1983–84

  6,864

  316

  7,457

  1984–85

  7,128

  330

  7,688

  1985–86

  7,519

  355

  7,180

  1986–87

  8,277

  364

  7,056

  1987–88

  9,070

  432

  6,930

  1988–89

  9,853

  565

  6,856

  1989–90

  10,726

  688

  6,831

  1990–91

  11,728

  648

  6,853

  1991–92

  12,714

  670

  6,869

  1992–93

  —

  640

  6,867

  Notes:

  1. Information on recurrent spending since 1991–92 is not yet

  Maintained schools

  Independent schools

  Number of school leavers (000s)

  Percentage intending to enter Degree or Teacher Training

  Number of school leavers (000s)

  Percentage intending to enter Degree or Teacher Training

  1981–82

  70·67

  6·7

  44·4

  36·9

  1982–83

  721·8

  6·4

  43·7

  33·3

  1983–84

  708·6

  6·3

  44·2

  33·9

  1984–85

  691·0

  6·2

  45·2

  33·2

  1985–86

  673·6

  6·2

  44·6

  32·7

  1986–87

  671·2

  6·3

  44·8

  30·1

  1987–88

  614·8

  7·2

  41·2

  37·4

  1988–89

  571·0

  8·1

  46·7

  34·9

  1989–90

  535·0

  9·9

  43·1

  46·5

  1990–91

  494·1

  11·4

  47·7

  45·7

  1991–92

  474·4

  13·0

  44·8

  53·6

WALES

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many visits abroad the Minister of State made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Redwood
  During 1993 the Minister of State for Wales made six visits abroad, as set out in the table.

  Date and purpose

  Cost(£)

  4 to 9 January

  To lead an inward investment mission to Taiwan and Singapore

  5,242

  9 to 10 June

  To lead an overseas trade mission to Zurich

  404·40

  17 to 25 August

  To lead an overseas trade mission to Singapore and Malaysia

  4,255

  12 to 24 September

  To lead an overseas trade mission to Canada

  4,243·30

  12 to 13 November

  142
  available.

  2. Information on capital spending since 1992–93 is not yet available.

  3. Recurrent spending figures represent net institutional spending in LEA-maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools as recorded on returns made to the Department of the Environment. Figures exclude spending on LEA administration and support services, and provision funded through central government specific grant.

  4. Capital figures represent spending on capital projects at LEA-maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  5. Pupil numbers, in full-time equivalents, are taken from returns made to DFE in January each year—annual schools' census—form 7.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school leavers there were in each of the past 10 years from the maintained and independent sectors; and what percentage in each category were intending to enter degree or teacher training courses.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimated numbers of school leavers over a recent 10-year period from the maintained and independent sectors are shown below, together with the percentage in each category intending to enter degree or teacher training courses. The latest year for which the information is available is 1991–92.

  Dale and purpose

  Cost (£)

  To take part in a European Ministers' meeting in Belgium

  236·90

  20 December

  For a meeting with a Minister of the Republic of Ireland Government in Dublin

  243

  Note: Costs are those for the Minister's own travel and subsistence, not for officials.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the conditions under which children and young people are entitled to be provided with the most appropriate hearing aid whether or not this is part of the national health service range of hearing aids;

  (2) which agency is responsible for monitoring the provision and maintenance of hearing aids for (a) pre-school children, (b) children at school and (c) young people aged 16 years and above who are in full-time education; and what plans there are to change the present arrangement;
  143
  (3) which agency monitors the provision of insurance on hearing aids for children and young people; and what plans there are to change the present arrangement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Hearing aids are available under the national health service for anyone who needs one. It is for the clinician concerned to decide which aid is most appropriate in each case, whether it is from the standard range or purchased by hearing aid centres from a commercial source. As hearing aids are provided on loan there is no requirement for the patient, or in the case of a child under 16, the child's parent, to insure the aid. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Health Service Commission
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what services the Welsh Health Service Commission has decided, or is proposing, not to purchase in 1994–95 which it did purchase in 1993–94.

  Qualified speech therapists in post as at 30 September

  Health Authority area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  11993

  Clwyd

  24

  29

  27

  34

  32

  East Dyfed

  15

  15

  14

  16

  17

  Gwent

  15

  16

  21

  23

  25

  Gwynedd

  12

  11

  11

  15

  14

  Mid Glamorgan

  18

  18

  22

  19

  27

  Pembrokeshire

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Powys

  9

  8

  8

  7

  8

  South Glamorgan

  31

  33

  31

  32

  34

  West Glamorgan

  21

  18

  14

  19

  17

  Wales

  150

  154

  153

  168

  177

  1 Includes staff employed by NHS trusts.

  Note:

  The use of locally devised payscales from 1991 may affect the comparability of figures as these staff cannot be allocated centrally to a specific staff group and are not, therefore, included in the table.

  Information on recent vacancies is not available centrally.

  Heliports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines have been issued by the Welsh Office to local planning authorities with regard to the considerations which should be born in mind, and consultations undertaken, prior to granting planning permission for the establishment of heliport facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No specific guidance has been issued on heliports. Local planning authorities should however have regard to the planning policy guidance note on general policy and principles.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will conduct a review of the growth of top managerial appointments within national health service trusts and health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The growth in the numbers of general and senior managers since 1989 can be accounted for primarily by reclassification from other staff groups and additional staff employed as the result of the establishment of NHS trusts. Health authorities and NHS trusts have been asked to take measures to contain numbers of managerial
  144
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the authority to determine.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified speech therapists were employed by(a) each health authority and (b) each local education authority in Wales in each of the past five years; what are the latest figures; and how many vacancies there were for speech therapists in each of these categories at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The whole-time equivalent numbers of speech therapists directly employed by the NHS, who would also treat school children, is given in the table. Information is not held centrally on the number of speech therapists directly employed by local education authorities.

  and also administrative and clerical staff at September 1993 levels for three years and to seek reductions wherever possible.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to Welsh health authorities in relation to(a) the filling of administrative and clerical vacancies and (b) the creation of new administrative and clerical vacancies; if he will publish that guidance; to what extent such guidance is applicable to NHS trusts; what consultations he has had with the Institute of Health Service Management in regard to that guidance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The director of the national health service in Wales has written to all health authorities asking them to submit, for approval, proposals for filling vacancies or the creation of new jobs in managerial and administrative and clerical grades. No consultation has taken place with the Institute of Health Service Management. Health authorities and NHS trusts generally will be ensuring that staff in these categories do not increase and wherever possible are reduced so that extra resources can be directed to patient care.
  145

  Community Hospital, Porthmadog
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimated date for starting construction work on the new East Dwyfor and North Meirionnydd community hospital at Porthmadog; and what is his target date for opening the new hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The planning time scale for this new hospital scheme is a matter for the Gwynedd community NHS trust—shadow. Subject to satisfactory completion of the health building procedures, the trust currently anticipates a construction start in October 1995 with the hospital opening towards the end of 1997.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number and (b) the total cost in 1992–93 of management agreements between the Countryside Council for Wales and owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest to (i) compensate for profit forgone and (ii) facilitate positive conservation management.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992–93 there were 358 agreements in force, costing £924,965. Only annual costs are readily identifiable in the form required and therefore the table does not include lump sum payments, arrears, interest and works. Seven complementary agreements of nominal cost are also excluded.

  Type of agreement

  Number

  Annual cost £

  i. Those which compensate for net profit forgone

  62

  47,223

  ii. Those which facilitate positive conservation management

  62

  75,582

  iii. Those which achieve both of the above

  227

  295,305

  Total

  351

  418,110

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the lack of diagnostic treatment facilities in Wales for people fearing the effects of toxic exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips; and what steps he proposes taking to remedy this problem.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not received any representations about the lack of diagnostic treatment facilities in Wales for people fearing the effect of toxic exposure or organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made by his Department of the total cumulative reduction in support to cereal growers in less-favoured areas in Wales in the current year following his announcement of such new boundaries for the arable aid scheme on 14 February.

  Mr. Redwood
  The payment rate in the LFA this year will be the same as last year, subject to any change in the 146
  green rate by 1 July 1994. Therefore, if the total area on which payments are claimed remains constant the total payments in the LFA will remain the same in 1994 as in 1993.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations his Department received following his original proposal in October 1993 for boundaries in respect of the arable aid scheme in Wales based on local parish boundaries; and how many were in favour of the non-LFA decision announced by him on 14 February.

  Mr. Redwood
  Two hundred and ninety-seven. Seven expressed support for an LFA/non-LFA split, although producers were not specifically asked about that possibility. Most sought an England and Wales region which was not possible.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made by his Department of the total cumulative reduction in hill livestock compensatory allowance support to livestock producers in the less-favoured areas in Wales in the current year, following this year's cut in hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Mr. Redwood
  Based on projected animal numbers eligible for payments and the reductions in individual rates, the reduction in hill livestock compensatory payments for the 1994 scheme year is estimated to be £5·5 million. This will be more than offset by increases in other forms of support.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the population of Wales, were registered with dentists for continuing care in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993, in each of the age group: (i) 18 to 64 years, (ii) 65 to 74 years and (iii) 75 years or more.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information available, which relates to the percentage of the relevant age group registered with an NHS dentist at 30 September, is given in the table.

  Percentage registered with a dentist

  People aged:

  1992

  1993

  18 to 64

  63

  63

  65 to 74

  42

  43

  75 and over

  30

  30

  Consultants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1987 the number of occasions on which management or other consultants have been engaged(a) by his office and (b) by non-departmental public bodies in Wales; what were the total amounts of authorised payments for those consultants in each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of management consultants engaged by the Welsh Office are as follows:
  147

  Number of occasions

  Total payments (£000s)

  1987–88

  n/a

  345

  1988–89

  20

  479

  1989–90

  8

  342

  1990–91

  24

  229

  1991–92

  38

  1,109

  1992–93

  74

  1,416

  11993–94

  75

  1,238

  1 Year to date.

  n/a = not available.

  Information for non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that a programme of research is carried out into the incidence of breast cancer affecting women in the county of Gwynedd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is already aware of the incidence of breast cancer in Gwynedd.

  A considerable body of research has been undertaken into the causes of breast cancer. This has revealed a number of factors which are consistently related to the development of breast cancer. It appears that there may be an important genetic component in some cases. Other important risk factors may include early menarche, no pregnancies or a late first pregnancy and late menopause. Dietary habits may also play a part.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the number of women suffering from breast cancer in the last year for which figures are available for each of the health authority areas in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of the number of women who currently have breast cancer are not readily available centrally. The numbers of new breast cancer cases registered for Welsh residents in 1988, the latest available year, are given in the table:

  Numbers of new registrations of female breast cancer (ICD-9 code 174), 1988

  Health authority area of residence

  Number

  Clwyd

  314

  East Dyfed

  185

  Pembrokeshire

  82

  Gwent

  273

  Gwynedd

  172

  Mid Glamorgan

  302

  Powys

  60

  South Glamorgan

  230

  West Glamorgan

  238

  Wales

  1,856

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statistics are available on the provision of infertility treatment in Wales; and what proposals he has to collect further data.
  148
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on centres and the number of events is collected centrally by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which is responsible for the licensing of centres. The authority is supported in part from public funds and its information on centres and statistics are available to all. In addition, limited information on in-patient and day case episodes in NHS hospitals is available centrally from the patient episode database for Wales.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of national health service trusts in Wales in relation to(a) contracts of employment for chief executives and (b) conditions in relation to pensions, severance and early retirement on sickness grounds of such executives; and what guidelines he has issued in relation to the pay and severance terms for such chief executives.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend has not had consultation with national health service trust chairmen on these issues.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 20 January 1993, Official Report, column 277, about guidance issued to national health service trust chairmen about the pay of chief executives. General guidance, pertaining to all staff, on the formulation of settlements on termination of employment was issued on 22 December 1993. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 263, why it is considered that publication of internal prison investigations into suicides might undermine the effectiveness of the reports; and if he will make a statement.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 22 February 1994]:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about publication of reports of internal investigations into prison suicides.

  May I begin by putting this in the wider context of how we respond to deaths in custody.

  The Prison Service is committed to dealing openly with the often painful aftermath of deaths by prisoners in our care. The responsibility for conducting a public inquest into the death lies with the Coroner. The Service seeks to give the Coroner every possible assistance with his enquiries. Prison governors are instructed to provide any factual information which may be relevant. The Coroner is able to ask for further information and to call witnesses. Close relatives are entitled to attend the inquest and may themselves ask questions of witnesses. The inquest is therefore a full and public investigation into the circumstances of a death. All inquests into prison deaths are conducted before a jury.

  We have recently reviewed our policy on the disclosure of information to the deceased prisoner's family. It has been decided

  149
  that documents made available to the Coroner may, subject to certain conditions, be given to the next of kin on request in advance of the inquest. This may include, for example, the medical records and other documents which contain evidence relevant to the purpose of the inquest. I enclose a copy of an extract from the Report of the Feltham Working Group, published last December, which explains our policy in more detail, including other steps we have taken to ensure families are treated with care and understanding in these circumstances.

  It is not our practice, however, to publish the reports of internal investigations into incidents in prison, including suicides or other deaths in custody. Now would such reports be available to the Coroner. The internal investigation is a separate review of the facts which the Prison Service carries out for its own management purposes. As a matter of policy we reserve the right to do so in confidence for two reasons.

  First, given the closed and potentially volatile nature of the prison environment publishing reports into prison incidents could cause problems for the day to day management of a prison. Knowledge within the prison of their contents and conclusions could, for example, lead to reprisals or disruption in the working relationships between staff. Second, the prospect of publication could discourage witnesses from co-operating with the inquiry and from being totally candid in the information they give to it. If they knew their identities were to be revealed, they might be at risk of being treated as informers. This could make it more difficult for the Prison Service to discover the truth, learn the appropriate lessons and take prompt and effective follow-up action, including the possibility of disciplinary action against members of staff.

  I should stress again that it is our policy to make all relevant factual information available both to the Coroner and to next of kin for the purpose of the public inquest, which will run parallel to the Prison Service's own investigation.

  As you know Christine Madden has written separately to Mr. Pearson, the Prison Service Director with operational responsibility for Leeds Prison, about the death of her brother. Mr. Pearson has replied enclosing a copy of Anthony Madden's medical records and offering to meet with her to go through some specific questions she has raised about his death, and to discuss any other concerns she may have. You would of course be welcome to attend the meeting if Miss Madden wishes. A member of the Senior Management Team at Leeds Prison would also be present.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) suicides, (b) attempted suicides and (c) instances of self-injury there have been at Hindley prison in each year since 1989; what were the ages of those who committed suicide; and what were the offences or alleged offences of those who committed suicide;

  (2) how many (a) suicides, (b) attempted suicides and (c) instances of self-injury there were at Cardiff prison in 1992 and 1993;

  (3) how many (a) suicides, (b) attempted suicides and (c) instances of self-injury there have been at Moorland prison in each year since it opened; what were the ages of those who committed suicide; and what were the offences or alleged offences of those who committed suicide.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters 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 D. Lewis to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 22 February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on suicides, attempted suicides and self-injury at Cardiff, Hindley and Moorland Prisons.

  Information about suicides includes all apparent self-inflicted deaths, not only those which resulted in verdicts of suicide at the Coroner's inquest.
  150
  National monitoring of self-injury commenced in 1991, and no information is available for earlier years. The figures collected nationally include all incidents of deliberate self-injury by prisoners, and do not distinguish between apparent attempted suicides and other acts of self-injury. Determining the level of suicidal intent is too subjective to produce reliable data about attempted suicide.

  HM Prison Cardiff

  Self-inflicted deaths

  1992

  Nil

  1993

  Nil

  Incident of self-harm

  1991

  29

  1992

  18

  1993

  10

  HM Prison Moorland

  Self-inflicted deaths

  1992

  Nil

  1993

  Nil

  1994

  2

  Self-inflicted death: details

  Karl Tout, 19, a remand prisoner charged with assault and theft.

  Brendan Tremble, 18, a remand prisoner, charged with aggravated taking and driving away a motor vehicle.

  Incident of self-harm

  1992

  246

  1993

  334

  HM Prison Hindley

  Self-inflicted deaths

  1989

  1

  1990

  3

  1991

  Nil

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  1994

  Nil

  Self-inflicted deaths: details

  1989:

  John McGowan, 19, a remand prisoner charged with rape.

  1990:

  Jonathan Curry, 18, a remand prisoner charged with motoring offences.

  Ian McKinlay, 18, a remand prisoner charged with rape.

  Anthony Hook, 18, a remand prisoner charged with assault.

  1992:

  Lee Davies, 18, sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for burglary and taking and driving away a motor vehicle.

  1993:

  Darren Taylor, 19, sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment for theft.

  Incidents of self-harm

  1991

  70

  1992

  76

  1993

  28

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what number and percentage of detainees at Campsfield house have had their applications for asylum determined; what percentage of these have been granted; what percentage have been deported; and to which countries and on what grounds;

  (2) how many asylum seekers and illegal entrants have been held since January 1993 in prison and detention centres (a) before the opening of Campsfield house and (b) subsequently, categorised by ethnic origin;

  (3) how many of those who have been granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom without detention as (a) asylum seekers and (b) illegal entrants have absconded in the most recent year for which statistics are available.
  151
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available and that which might be gathered could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number and percentage of detainees at Campsfield house have had their applications for bail heard; what percentage have been granted; and what percentage refused and on what grounds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by country of origin, how many visitors have been refused entry to the United Kingdom since the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available statistics relate to calendar months and are given in the tables. Separate data for persons seeking entry as visitors who were refused and removed at ports in the United Kingdom are not available, but visitors are likely to comprise the majority of the total.

  TABLE 1. Persons refused leave to enter and removed at ports in the United Kingdom, in the period August to November 1993.

  Geographical region and nationality

  Number of persons

  All nationalities

  5,742

  European Community

  81

  Belgium

  1

  Denmark

  —

  France

  40

  Germany

  1

  Greece

  —

  Italy

  16

  Luxembourg

  —

  Netherlands

  10

  Portugal

  12

  Spain

  1

  Other Western Europe

  341

  Austria

  18

  Cyprus

  50

  Finland

  22

  Malta

  10

  Norway

  23

  Sweden

  48

  Switzerland

  20

  Turkey

  69

  Former Yugoslavia

  81

  Eastern Europe

  921

  Bulgaria

  5

  Former Czechoslovakia

  100

  Hungary

  47

  Poland

  623

  Romania

  49

  Former USSR

  97

  Americas

  935

  Argentina

  15

  Barbados

  11

  Brazil

  81

  Canada

  33

  Chile

  11

  Colombia

  135

  Guyana

  30

  Jamaica

  144

  Mexico

  19

  Peru

  43

  Trinidad and Tobago

  24

  USA

  372

  152

  Geographical region and nationality

  Number of persons

  Venezuela

  17

  Africa

  1,509

  Algeria

  66

  Angola

  11

  Egypt

  6

  Ethiopia

  10

  Ghana

  142

  Kenya

  110

  Libya

  10

  Mauritius

  52

  Morocco

  36

  Nigeria

  426

  Sierra Leone

  134

  Somalia

  23

  South Africa

  255

  Sudan

  11

  Tanzania

  52

  Tunisia

  3

  Uganda

  57

  Zaire

  30

  Zambia

  23

  Zimbabwe

  52

  Indian sub-continent

  245

  Bangladesh

  50

  India

  107

  Pakistan

  88

  Middle East

  183

  Iran

  47

  Iraq

  13

  Israel

  51

  Jordan

  7

  Kuwait

  1

  Lebanon

  46

  Saudi Arabia

  13

  Syria

  2

  Yemen

  3

  Remainder of Asia

  364

  China

  38

  Indonesia

  8

  Japan

  58

  Malaysia

  137

  Philippines

  23

  Singapore

  14

  South Korea

  16

  Sri Lanka

  33

  Thailand

  7

  Hong Kong1

  30

  Australasia

  110

  Australia

  70

  New Zealand

  40

  Others

  1,053

  British Overseas citizens

  32

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  527

  Stateless and nationality doubtful

  494

  1 British dependent territories citizens and British nationals (overseas) only.

  Table 2 Persons refused a visit entry clearance in selected countries1, in the period August to December 1993

  Country of application

  Number of persons

  Bangladesh

  1,350

  India

  2,780

  Pakistan

  3,400

  Hong Kong

  220

  153
  1 Corresponding data for other countries are not available centrally.

  2 Including July 1993.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose applications were made since the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 are currently held in detention;

  (2) how many asylum seekers whose applications were made before the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 are currently held in detention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The table relates to asylum seekers in detention on 17 February 1994. The date of application is not recorded centrally in illegal entry cases and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Applied before 26 July 1993

  Applied on or after 26 July 1993

  Total

  Port cases

  38

  322

  360

  Deportation cases

  22

  49

  71

  Illegal entrants

  —

  —

  289

  720

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was taken that it was safe to return unsuccessful asylum seekers to Sudan; from what date the new policy is to take effect, and what internal circumstances have changed in Sudan to justify this change of policy.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have been prepared since August 1993 to consider returning to Sudan unsuccessful asylum seekers who do not qualify for refugee status and where there are no strong compassionate or other grounds for granting them exceptional leave to remain. This decision was made after a careful assessment of circumstances in both northern and southern Sudan and of the position of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by country of origin, how many asylum seekers have been refused entry to the United Kingdom, detained and deported since the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between 26 July 1993 and 16 January 1994, 334 passengers who had sought asylum on arrival were removed from the United Kingdom following refusal of entry. Their countries of nationality are listed in the table. Of these passengers, 225 remained in detention for the whole period of their stay, and the remainder may have spent some time in detention.

  Number

  Afghanistan

  1

  Algeria

  9

  Angola

  14

  Bangladesh

  2

  Bulgaria

  1

  Burkina Faso

  1

  Brazil

  1

  China

  3

  Colombia

  5

  Congo

  1

  154

  Number

  Czechoslovakia

  1

  Ethiopia

  2

  Former Yugoslavia

  8

  Former Soviet Union

  7

  Ghana

  40

  Hungary

  2

  India

  11

  Iran

  3

  Ivory Coast

  12

  Jamaica

  1

  Jordan

  1

  Kenya

  4

  Kuwait

  1

  Lebanon

  5

  Liberia

  3

  Malawi

  1

  Niger

  4

  Nigeria

  31

  Pakistan

  9

  Peru

  1

  Poland

  8

  Romania

  30

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  Sierra Leone

  10

  Somalia

  11

  South Africa

  1

  Sri Lanka

  16

  Sudan

  2

  Tanzania

  3

  Turkey

  26

  Uganda

  8

  USA

  1

  Nationality Doubtful (Palestine)

  6

  Nationality Doubtful

  10

  Zaire

  16

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to which countries asylum seekers rejected on third country grounds have been removed; and how many have subsequently been returned to the United Kingdom by the authorities of the third country since 26 July 1993;

  (2) how many asylum applications have been refused on safe third country grounds since 26 July 1993; and how many asylum seekers have subsequently been removed from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the six complete months—1 August 1993 to 31 January 1994—since 26 July 1993 there were 459 refusals on third country grounds—431 in port cases and 28 in in-country cases. During the same six months, 177 port asylum applicants refused on third country grounds were removed or departed voluntarily. Corresponding information on in-country cases is not available.

  Information on the destination of third country removals is not readily available.

  In the period 1 August 1993 to 21 January 1994, 28 port asylum cases, who had been removed on third country grounds, were returned to the United Kingdom.

  Immigration Advisory Service
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current level of funding for the immigration appeals advisory service and the refugee legal centre; and what plans he has to increase it.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1993–94 provision of £4·924 million has been made for grants made under section 23 of
  155
  the Immigration Act 1971, under which funding is provided for both the immigration advisory service—formerly IASS—and the refugee legal centre. The provision for 1994–95 is £5·522 million.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to appoint the members of the independent panel which will consider appeals under the revised arrangements for paying criminal injuries compensation—the tariff scheme—which come into force on 1 April.

  Mr. Howard
  The Secretary of State for Scotland and I have appointed Mr. Michael Lewer QC, an experienced member of the present Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, to be the first chairman of the new appeals panel. Our aim now is to appoint a nucleus of about a dozen panel members within the next few weeks to deal with any early appeals under the new scheme. We would like some of those posts to be filled by other members of the present board. The full complement of appeals panel members will be appointed over the coming months as the number of appeals builds up.

  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue a response to the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library of both Houses a paper which provides an interim Government response to the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

  Of the royal commission's 352 recommendations, we identified 308 as intended for action by Government. Some 130 of these recommendations have already been accepted and virtually all the remainder are still under active and careful consideration.

  I hope that I will shortly be in a position to make available a further important response to the report of the royal commission by publishing a paper setting out how the Government propose to give effect to the royal commission's recommendations about the powers of the Court of Appeal, and new arrangements for considering alleged miscarriages of justice.

  South Wales Police
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter dated 30 December 1993 from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth regarding the South Wales police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 16 February.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much police time is being devoted to investigating war crimes in accordance with the provisions of the War Crimes Act 1991;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of investigations under the War Crimes Act 1991.
  156
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Metropolitan police war crimes unit is staffed by 11 police officers and is supported by seven civilians. It was set up specifically to investigate allegations against war criminals arising from the War Crimes Act and it is dedicated full time to that task. As with other criminal offences, such investigations are entirely the responsibility of the police. I anticipate, though, that the unit's work should be completed by the end of the next financial year.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dog-handlers and dogs were used to police the protest against the construction of the M11 link road in Wanstead on Saturday 22 January.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that no dogs were used to police the protest. Six handlers and their dogs were deployed once the site had been cleared of protesters, to prevent any further incursions.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police personnel were used to police the protest against the construction of the M11 link road in Wanstead on Saturday 22 January.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that a total of 130 officers were deployed.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total costs of policing protests against the construction of the M11 link road since September 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that the total manpower costs since September 1993 are £470,075. Information on the cost of support services and other resources involved is not available.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of policing the protest against the construction of the M11 link road in Wanstead on Saturday 22 January.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that the additional manpower cost of policing the protest on 22 January was £9,240. Information on the cost of support services and other resources involved is not available.

  Bosnians
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Bosnians are now resident in Britain outside the quota system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The numbers of people who many apply for or be granted asylum, or be admitted to the United Kingdom in other capacities under the immigration rules, are not subject to quotas. Each case is considered on its merits under the relevant rules.

  The available information is as follows. Between 1 January 1992 and 31 January 1994 some 7,590 nationals of the former Yugoslavia, excluding dependants, applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. The large majority of these cases are under consideration and the applicants are being allowed to stay in the meantime.
  157
  In addition, under arrangements announced in November 1992 and June 1993, the Government have offered to receive 1,000 particularly vulnerable individuals from Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia, and their close dependants: an estimated total of 4,000 people. As at 21 February 1994, 568 particularly vulnerable individuals and 781 dependants had arrived under these arrangements. Prior to this, 68 sick and wounded ex-detainees from Bosnia arrived in September 1992.

  Information on Bosnians who have entered the United Kingdom in another capacity is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Assisted Prison Visits
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the prison service is now in a position to make a decision on when it will implement its business plan commitment to honour the payment of travel costs on second visits to prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Loyd
  Responsibility for these matters 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 D. Lewis to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 22 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the proposed extension of the assisted prison visits scheme to cover the second statutory monthly visit.
  In line with the commitment, given in the Prison Service's Business Plan for 1993–94, the assisted visits scheme for England and Wales will be increased from 5 April 1994 to enable prisoners' close relatives on income support to visit once every 14 days.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to carry out a review of the legislation and procedures governing the use of animals in laboratories; whether he will list the changes made in respect of animal experiments since 1979; and if he will make a statement of Government policy on this matter.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 represented a major reform in the law regulating the use of laboratory animals. The Government are committed to the underlying principle of the legislation, which is to prevent all avoidable animal suffering and unnecessary animal use, while recognising the legitimate needs of science.

  The Animal Procedures Committee, established under the 1986 Act, is required to monitor the working of the legislation and advise my right hon. and learned Friend on ways of improving its operation. It is the practice for the committee's annual report, which is laid before Parliament, to describe any significant changes that have occurred in these arrangements. The annual reports also describe the results of the committee's deliberations on particular areas of research or concern.

  Wheel Clamps
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles were clamped by private contractors employed by the Metropolitan 158
  police in each of the past five years; what were the fees charged for removal of clamps in each of the past five years; and what are the criteria for assessing increases in these fees.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The figures for the numbers of vehicles clamped and the charge made for each of the past five years are given in the table. The charge is set at a level to recover the full cost to the police of the clamping operation. The charge is subject to annual review.

  Year

  Number of clamps

  Charge £

  1988–89

  130,553

  25

  1989–90

  156,747

  30

  1990–91

  152,881

  30

  1991–92

  128,180

  32

  1992–93

  93,541

  38

  Kenya (Immigration Officers)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the function of the British and Dutch immigration officers stationed at Nairobi and Mombasa airports; how long they have been there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Two chief immigration officers from the immigration service and three Dutch immigration officials were in Kenya at various times between 15 August and 6 November 1993 to train and advise airline staff at Nairobi and Mombasa airports in the identification of inadequately documented passengers. Two of the officers concerned are currently in Kenya for 10 days to assess the effectiveness of the earlier training.

  Teachers, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of teachers employed in schools in each of the London boroughs whose salaries are paid in full or part from section 11 funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 17 February to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn),Official Report, columns 904–906).

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Lord Chancellor since 17 December 1990 concerning the continued existence of the death penalty for the crimes of treason, treason felony and piracy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There were a number of exchanges between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the Lord Chancellor on this subject after 17 December 1990. I understand that the law relating to treason, treason-felony and piracy remains on the Law Commission's agenda for codification of the criminal law.
  159

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are given to immigration officers at ports of entry to assist them in considering the cases of those seeking to re-enter the United Kingdom after a trip abroad, during the period of a valid visa.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Passengers whose stay in the United Kingdom was subject to a time limit and who return after a temporary absence abroad are considered under paragraph 60 of the immigration rules—HC251. The same time limit and any conditions attached will normally be reimposed if the requirements of the rules are met, unless admission is sought in a different capacity from the one in which leave to enter or remain was last given.

  Visas
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current position within the European Community concerning the harmonisation of visa arrangements; what effect this will have on the current United Kingdom visa arrangements; what representations he has received concerning the effect of such changes on trade and other relations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The European Commission recently put forward proposals to give effect to article 100c of the treaty of Rome, which provides for the determination of the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external frontiers of the member states. In accordance with the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of European Community documents, the Commission document was deposited on 18 January, and the Government submitted their explanatory memorandum on 1 February. My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations concerning the possible effect of the Commission's proposals on trade and other relations.

  Police (Protective Clothing)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to introduce legislation to make it compulsory for police authorities to provide individual head gear for firearms teams in their police forces; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he intends to provide the necessary finance to police authorities to enable them to purchase individual head gear for firearms teams in their police forces; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he intends to provide the necessary finance to police authorities to enable them to purchase knife-proof vests for their police forces; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) when he intends to introduce legislation to make it compulsory for police authorities to provide knife-proof vests for members of their police forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no plans to introduce such legislation. It is for chief officers of police to decide how to equip their officers. Police protective equipment is purchased out of normal police funds.
  160

  Children's Services
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time employers currently have to wait for clearance through the police vetting procedure of prospective employees who wish to work with children.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The last full year for which comprehensive figures are available is the year to 31 March 1993. Not all forces provided an average response time and it is, therefore, not possible to give an overall average.

  Where a force only needs to consult records which are available within the force, the majority respond in 14 days or less, with just over half responding in seven days or under. Where inquiries have to be made of other police forces, an extra delay of three weeks or more can be incurred.

  A few forces, though have average response times significantly longer than these, with one force responding within an average of 70 days where internal inquiries only were needed and 75 days where inquiries of other forces were required.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for vetting of prospective employees wishing to work with children each police authority received in the last year for which figures are available from(a) education authorities, (b) the independent education sector, (c) social services departments, (d) health authorities and (e) the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The last year for which figures are available is the year to 31 March 1993, when the total number of child protection checks carried out by police forces in England and Wales was 663,103. The number of child protection checks carried out by each force, excluding checks made for the voluntary organisations consultancy service, was as follows:

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  16,641

  Bedfordshire

  7,847

  Cambridgeshire

  10,589

  Cheshire

  15,965

  City of London

  119

  Cleveland

  5,716

  Cumbria

  3,901

  Derbyshire

  9,944

  Devon and Cornwall

  17,951

  Dorset

  12,973

  Durham

  9,179

  Dyfed-Powys

  12,198

  Essex

  17,725

  Gloucestershire

  17,500

  Greater Manchester

  30,653

  Gwent

  4,319

  Hampshire

  27,463

  Hertfordshire

  12,588

  Humberside

  9,040

  Kent

  17,239

  Lancashire

  18,555

  Leicestershire

  19,653

  Lincolnshire

  7,128

  Merseyside

  25,078

  Metropolitan

  82,875

  Norfolk

  10,702

  Northamptonshire

  7,499

  Northumbria

  15,325

  North Wales

  9,701

  North Yorkshire

  6,019

  Nottinghamshire

  14,910

  South Wales

  12,915

  161

  Number

  South Yorkshire

  16,313

  Staffordshire

  7,414

  Surrey

  12,337

  Suffolk

  5,003

  Sussex

  15,460

  Thames Valley

  29,562

  Warwickshire

  10,772

  West Mercia

  17,485

  West Midlands

  33,282

  West Yorkshire

  14,812

  Wiltshire

  12,122

  1 Approximate.

  In the same period the voluntary organisations consultancy service made 8,631 requests to police forces for checks to be made on behalf of certain national voluntary child care organisations. In addition, some of the checks requested by local authorities may have been made on behalf of voluntary organisations.

  A further breakdown in the way sought is not available.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to require the voluntary sector to use the police vetting service of prospective employees wishing to work with children.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. However, the current review by the Home Office of arrangements for access to criminal records for vetting purposes may result in checks being made more widely available to the voluntary child care sector, should it wish to use them.

  National Lottery
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent rivals to the national lottery from establishing themselves.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provided that the competitors operate within the law, there are no grounds for the Government to take such steps.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the length of time that should elapse before a person with a serious criminal conviction can successfully apply for a shotgun or firearms certificate.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 provides that a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment, including detention in a young offenders institution, for a term of three years or more is prohibited at any time from having a firearm or ammunition in their possession. A person sentenced to a term of three months or more but less than three years is prohibited from having a firearm or ammunition in his or her possession at any time for a period of five years from the date of his or her release.

  The issue of firearm and shotgun certificates is a matter for the local chief officer of police.

  Notwithstanding the expiry of a person's prohibition, a chief officer may grant a certificate only if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a firearm without danger to public safety or the peace. An applicant aggrieved by the decision of a chief officer may appeal to the Crown court.
  162

  Sentencing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to order an examination into disparity of sentencing by judges.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: The Government have no such plans. Decisions on sentencing in individual cases are for the courts to determine in the light of all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. There is an avenue of appeal against sentence in all cases.

  Dog Fouling
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to increase the maximum penalty for dog fouling to bring it into line with the maximum penalty for dropping litter.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to change the maximum level of penalty which can be adopted by local authorities and others, in their dog fouling byelaws. However, dog fouling legislation is being looked at by the advisory group on litter as part of its review of litter legislation. Its report is expected in the spring.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to introduce a national register of individuals identified as unsuitable for employment involving close contact with children.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department already runs the consultancy service which advises prospective employers in the child care system about people who may be unsuitable to work with children. The consultancy list includes the names of those on the Department for Education's list 99 debarred from teaching by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the Government's proposal to end their funding of the Commonwealth Institute after March 1996; what consultation there has been with the Commonwealth secretariat about the proposal; if he will reconsider the proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 14 February 1994,Official Report, columns 569–70.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current annual funding of(a) the Commonwealth Institute and (b) the military training assistance scheme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The current annual funding of the Commonwealth Institute is £3 million. An additional funding of £2·4 million between now and March 1996 has been allocated for redundancies. The military training assistance scheme funding in 1993–94 is £13·4 million.
  163

  Balkans Customs Corridor
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Commission's initiative, under the PHARE programme, for a Balkan customs corridor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1994, c. 685]: The European Commission has recently announced that support for a Balkans customs corridor will form part of a proposed wider initiative for transit improvement in the Balkan region for which up to 100 million ecu—around £77 million—could be made available. Firm proposals for assistance using PHARE programme funds have yet to be finalised and presented to member states for opinion.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the average number of signatures added to early-day motions per week; and what is the total annual cost to public funds of early-day motions.

  Mr. Newton
  The average number of hon. Members' signatures added to early-day motions in each sitting week in calendar year 1993 was 3,091; the total cost to public funds of printing and publishing early-day motions during 1993 is estimated by Her Majesty's Stationery Office to have been £2,290,000.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 78, how many early-day motions were tabled in 1992–93; and how many early-day motions have been debated since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  There were 2,574 early-day motions tabled in Session 1992–93.

  There is no definitive list of motions debated in the House which first appeared on the Order Paper as early-day motions. The majority of such motions are prayers against statutory instruments. The number of motions to annul or revoke an instrument debated on the Floor of the House from 1979 to 1980 Session to date is 208. Other than prayers, it seems that there have not been more than four motions debated in the House since 1979 which began as early-day motions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Russia
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards Russia's application to join the Group of Seven.

  The Prime Minister
  I believe that there is a strong case for building a closer political dialogue between Russia and the Group of Seven, by creating a political Group of Eight, although it would not be appropriate in current circumstances for Russia to join the economic G7. I shall be taking this up with my G7 colleagues.
  164

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

  10 Downing Street
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of items on loan to 10 Downing street which have been mislaid since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of all items of works of art, furniture, china, gold and silver artefacts currently on loan in 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister which paintings and other works of art on display in 10 Downing street in October 1990 have subsequently been removed.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Visits (Media)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of amounts outstanding from media organisations for costs arising from using official transport on overseas visits.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to give details of outstanding accounts.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister which official gifts were retained by his predecessor at the end of her period of office.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven would have retained those gifts of small value that she wished to keep, and those gifts of higher value that she had chosen to purchase.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister which countries he has visited in an official capacity since November 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Country

  Dates

  Italy

  13–15 December 1990

  United States of America

  20–22 December 1990

  Saudi Arabia

  6–8 January 1991

  Oman

  8–9 January 1991

  Egypt

  9 January 1991

  165

  Country

  Dates

  France

  14 January 1991

  France

  20 January 1991

  Germany

  11 February 1991

  Soviet Union

  4–5 March 1991

  Germany

  11 March 1991

  Bermuda

  15–16 March 1991

  Luxembourg

  8 April 1991

  France

  24 June 1991

  Luxembourg

  28–29 June 1991

  Spain

  2–13 June 1991

  Spain

  2 August 1991

  United States of America

  27–30 August 1991

  China/Russia

  1–6 September 1991

  France

  11–12 September 1991

  Netherlands

  18 September 1991

  Zimbabwe

  14–22 October 1991

  Italy

  7–8 November 1991

  Germany

  10 November 1991

  Italy

  27 November 1991

  Germany

  27 November 1991

  Netherlands

  1 December 1991

  Republic of Ireland

  4 December 1991

  Netherlands

  8–10 December 1991

  United States of America

  30–31 January 1992

  Poland

  25–26 May 1992

  Czechoslovakia

  26–28 May 1992

  Hungary

  28–29 May 1992

  Germany

  5 June 1992

  USA

  6–9 June 1992

  Colombia

  9–10 June 1992

  Brazil

  10–12 June 1992

  Portugal

  25–27 June 1992

  Germany

  6–8 July 1992

  Finland

  9–10 July 1992

  Spain

  7–9 August 1992

  Spain

  16–17 September 1992

  France

  30 September 1992

  Egypt

  23–25 October 1992

  Belgium

  23 November 1992

  Italy/Greece

  27–28 November 1992

  Luxembourg

  30 November 1992

  Spain

  30 November 1992

  1 December 1992

  Portugal

  1 December 1992

  Denmark

  2 December 1992

  Netherlands

  6–7 December 1992

  Republic of Ireland

  7 December 1992

  France

  15–16 December 1992

  Canada

  17–18 December 1992

  USA

  18–20 December 1992

  Bosnia

  22 December 1992

  India

  23–28 January 1993

  Oman

  28 January 1993

  Saudi Arabia

  28 January 1993

  USA

  23–25 February 1993

  Switzerland

  5–6 April 1993

  Austria

  6 April 1993

  France

  27–28 May 1993

  Denmark

  20–22 June 1993

  Japan

  5–9 July 1993

  Sweden

  11–13 August 1993

  Portugal

  23 August 1993

  Japan

  18–21 September 1993

  Malaysia

  21–22 September 1993

  Monaco

  23 September 1993

  Cyprus

  21–25 October 1993

  Belgium

  28–29 October 1993

  Germany

  25 November 1993

  Republic of Ireland

  3 December 1993

  Belgium

  9–11 December 1993

  Belgium

  9–11 January 1994

  Russia

  14–16 February 1994

  166

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage the development of retail, wholesale and manufacturing co-operatives.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 8 February,Official Report, column 121.

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will require coal merchants selling petroleum coke to issue to all purchasers pamphlets on the dangers of the fuel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Section 10—the general safety requirement—of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 already makes it an offence to supply consumer goods which are not reasonably safe, having regard to all the circumstances. These circumstances include the manner in which the goods are marketed and any instructions or warnings given with the goods concerning their use. Accordingly, my Department has advised known suppliers of petroleum coke that failure to provide consumers with written instructions about the safe use of this fuel and the precautions that should be taken could render themselves liable to prosecution under section 10 of the Act.

  My Department has also notified local authority trading standards departments, which are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of the safety provisions of the Act, of this advice.

  Australian House Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek from his counterparts in France and Belgium details of deaths in 1992 and 1993 attributed to fumes from defective Australian house coal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has requested this information from the relevant authorities in France and Belgium, and I will write to the hon. Member when a response is received.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which post offices in Ayrshire are still under the direct authority of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that there are five—Ayr, Irvine, Kilmarnock, Kilwinning and Saltcoats.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices throughout the United Kingdom have been franchised in each year since introduction of the policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers are as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  153

  1990–91

  164

  1991–92

  147

  167

  Number

  1992–93

  108

  11993–94

  56

  1 To January.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has received from the Post Office of the financial benefits of franchising as opposed to maintaining post offices under its direct control.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the financial benefits are as follows:

  Net recurring benefit of each year's conversions

  £ millions

  1989–90

  4·4

  1990–91

  3·9

  1991–92

  4·1

  1992–93

  3·4

  Over the same period, one-off income from fees has exceeded one-off costs associated with conversions by £13·1 million.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has received from the Post Office to franchise the operating of Kilwinning and Irvine main post offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are used by the Post Office to monitor the performance of agency post offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that Post Office Counters Ltd. monitors the performance of agency post offices across the generic areas of financial accounting, customer service and accuracy of transactions. It does so directly through regular financial and procedural audits and the support of retail network managers, and indirectly through customer research and "mystery shopper" surveys.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post and sub-post offices have been given agency status in Ayrshire; and if he will list them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the following 13 post offices in Ayrshire have been converted from directly managed to agency status:

  Ardrossan

  Beith

  Brodick

  Burns Statue Ayr

  Cumnock

  Dalry

  Girvan

  Largs

  Maypole

  Prestwick

  Stevenson

  Troon

  West Kilbride

  In addition, there are 101 sub-post offices in Ayrshire.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement indicating how many people are employed at(a) Kilwinning and (b) Irvine main post offices.
  168
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that Kilwinning Crown post office employs eight staff, of whom four are full time and four are part time, and that Irvine Crown post office employs 12 staff, of whom eight are full time and four are part time.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many jobs have been lost throughout the United Kingdom as a result of the introduction of agency status for post offices;

  (2) how many jobs have been lost in Scotland as a result of the introduction of agency status for post offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None that I am aware of. Since the full range of services is maintained and the agency offices are frequently open for longer hours, they need to employ similar or even greater numbers of staff.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices in Scotland have been given agency status during each year since the introduction of the franchising policy; and if he will list them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers are as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  32

  1990–91

  29

  1991–92

  40

  1992–93

  11

  11993–94

  5

  1 to January

  The post offices in Scotland converted to agency status between April 1989 and January 1994 are:

  Alexandria

  Anstruther

  Arbroath

  Banchory

  Banff

  Barrhead

  Bearsden

  Beith

  Bishopbriggs

  Bo'ness

  Blairgowrie

  Brechin

  Brodick

  Broughty Ferry

  Broxburn

  Bruntsfield Edinburgh

  Buckhaven

  Buckie

  Burns Statue Ayr

  Burntisland

  Campbeltown

  Carnoustie

  Cathcart Glasgow

  Coldstream

  Cowdenbeath

  Crieff

  Cumnock

  Cupar

  Dalbeattie

  Dalmuir Glasgow

  Dairy

  Dingwall

  Dunbar

  Dunblane

  Dunoon

  Duns

  Elton

  Forfar

  169

  Forres

  Forrest Road Edinburgh

  Fraserburgh

  George Street Aberdeen

  Girvan

  Glasgow Airport

  Glasgow Road Ardrossan

  Gourock

  Grangemouth

  Grantown on Spey

  Hawick

  Helensburgh

  Hillhead

  Huntly

  Invergordon

  Inverurie

  Jamaica Street Glasgow

  Jedburgh

  Johnstone

  Kelso

  Kelvinbridge Glasgow

  Kilmacolm

  Kilsyth

  Kinross

  Kirkcudbright

  Kirriemuir

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  Lairg

  Larkhall

  Lanark

  Largs

  Leith

  Leith Walk Edinburgh

  Leven

  Lochee Dundee

  Lochgelly

  Lochgilphead

  Lockerbie

  Lossiemouth

  Maryhill Glasgow

  Maybole

  Melrose

  Moffat

  Montrose

  Musselburgh

  Nairn

  Newton Stewart

  Newlands Glasgow

  North Berwick

  North Park Edinburgh Oban

  Parkhead Glasgow

  Peebles

  Penicuik

  Pitlochry

  Pollock Glasgow

  Port Ellen

  Port Glasgow

  Portobello Edinburgh

  Portree

  Prestonpans

  Prestwick

  Rothesay

  Selkirk

  Shawlands Glasgow

  Shotts

  St. George's Cross Glasgow

  St. Rollox Glasgow

  Stevenston

  Stonehaven

  Strathaven

  Stromness

  Tain

  Tollcross Edinburgh

  Tranent

  Troon

  Turriff

  Uddingston

  West Kilbride

  170
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on criteria used by the Post Office for considering post offices for agency status and the extent to which the criteria vary for rural post offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that directly managed post offices, wherever located, are considered for conversion to agencies on the following criteria:the service benefit of changing—longer opening hours, better location;
  financial benefits;
  ability to redeploy/reduce staff numbers voluntarily;
  availability of a suitable partner to become agent.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards are used by the Post Office to ensure the rights of existing staff in post offices which are transferred to agency status.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that all conversions have been achieved without compulsory redundancy. When a conversion occurs, staff are offered alternative jobs within the organisation or the opportunity to leave the business on voluntary redundancy terms.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation procedures are adopted by the Post Office when considering franchising a post office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that consultation is carried out in accordance with the code of practice agreed between Post Office Counters Ltd. and the Post Office Users National Council, and involves the local Member of Parliament, local government authorities and the appropriate post office advisory committee or chamber of commerce.

  Tourism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that the implementation of the EU directive on forward selling will not prevent hoteliers and others involved in the tourism industry in the counties of Britain from requiring a deposit when accepting bookings; and if he will make a statement on the Government's position on this issue.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Negotiations on the proposed directive on distance selling are continuing in Brussels. The Government have made it clear that they will not support this directive while it contains provisions which would prevent payment in advance for goods or services.

  Deregulation'and Contracting Out Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to inform those of Her Majesty's civil servants currently occupied in the Departments, agencies or other bodies named in any part of his explanatory memorandum to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill of the liability of those organisations for partial or complete contractorisation of their services under the powers he seeks in clauses 57 to 64 of that Bill.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The explanatory guide to the Bill contains examples of areas where statutory obstacles to market testing or contracting out exist which could in
  171
  principle be addressed using provisions in part II of the Bill. The list is illustrative and does not represent firm plans to market test or contract out particular functions except as indicated. In many cases further review would be required, taking into account all relevant considerations.

  It is the responsibility of individual Ministers to manage the market-testing programmes in their Departments, including anouncements relating to any intention to use the provisions in the contracting-out part of the Bill if enacted.

  In respect of my Department the heads of the management units concerned informed their staff about the implications for them of the Bill, and the explanatory material, when the Bill was introduced to Parliament.

  Product Development Awards
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what British standards awards have been established for product development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The British Standards Institution has published a guide—BS 7000 part 1—to managing product design which offers guidance on product development. However, there are no specific British standards setting out detailed specifications against which companies' product development expertise can be measured or against which certificates may be awarded.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received on the project co-sponsored by the European Commission's research directorate-general to gain support in Cumbria for the planned radioactive waste repository near Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the project concerned relates to the provision of factual information in various forms to the public regarding the possible development of a radioactive waste repository near Sellafield and to assessments of the impact of those information flows on public opinion.

  Bestwood Pension Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department's investigation into the theft of money from the Bestwood pension fund was completed; when it was made available to the Department of Social Security; and what were the reasons for the interval.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors appointed under sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of the Bestwood plc and on the affairs of Atlanta Fund Managers Ltd. submitted their report on 26 March 1991. The inspectors' report was disclosed to the DSS shortly before the report was published earlier this year.

  At the time the report was submitted, the Serious Fraud Office has already commenced a criminal investigation into certain matters revealed by the report. Publication of the report did not take place until after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
  172

  Markets
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) opposed to deregulating town centre markets.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has received 40 representations from individuals, local authorities, trade associations and businesses on the Government's proposals to deregulate market charter rights, of which eight express support. However, many of those opposed to the proposal do so under the misapprehension that charter rights provisions may be used to halt generally by way of permanent injunction other markets which may cause local nuisance. This is, only so in limited circumstances—where the rival market is held on the same day as the charter market or where, if not held on the same day, it can be demonstrated that direct financial loss has occurred thereby.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will identify for each of the proposals put forward to Government by the business deregulation task forces, and represented by numbers 96, 99, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 229, 264, 273, 283, 287, 292, 309, 314 in the publication "Deregulation Task Forces Proposals for Reform"(a) which the Government have already taken action on, (b) which are under further consideration and (c) which are not being considered further.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Government policy on the issues raised by business deregulation task force proposals 96 and 99 is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the remainder are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the letter sent to him on 10 December by the Campaign for Freedom of Information on the disclosure of information on THORP under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  A reply was sent on 10 February 1994.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) of 4 February,Official Report, column 946, what is the reason for details of CFC exports from the United Kingdom being confidential only since 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Trade in any particular commodity may be dominated by one or two manufacturers or traders. In such a case, the companies concerned may request Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to suppress publication of detailed figures on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. In the case of CFC exports, suppression has been invoked since 1991.
  173

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the, transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18 February,Official Report, column 1010.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to use bankruptcy and winding-up orders only as a last resort, and to negotiate payment by instalment of those affected, wherever possible.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Where my Department is a creditor I would expect every effort to be made to effect recovery, including consideration of accepting payment by instalments, prior to commencing insolvency proceedings. I am sure that most creditors adopt this same, practical approach.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of bankruptcies and company winding-up orders for each year since 1987; and what percentage of these were carried out at the instigation of petitions by(a) the Inland Revenue, (b) Customs and Excise and (c) other Government Departments or official body.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of bankruptcies and company winding-up orders for each year since 1987 is 'set out in table 1.

  The number of bankruptcy or company winding-up orders obtained by various Government Departments since 1987 is set out in tables 2 to 5:

  Table 1

  Number of Bankruptcies and Company Winding-Up Orders 1987–93 England and Wales

  1 Bankruptcies

  Company Winding-up Orders

  1987

  6,994

  4,116

  1988

  7,717

  3,667

  1989

  8,138

  4,020

  1990

  12,058

  5,977

  1991

  22,632

  8,368

  1992

  32,106

  9,734

  1993

  30,958

  8,361

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

  1Bankruptcies covers bankruptcy orders and administration orders on bankrupt estates.

  Table 5

  Company winding-up orders following petitions brought by Government Departments 1987–93 (where statistics recorded by fiscal years) England and Wales

  Company Winding-up orders

  Customs and Excise

  Percentage of total

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Percentage of total

  1987–88

  3,952

  690

  17·46

  18

  0·56

  1988–89

  3,554

  552

  15·53

  14

  0·39

  1989–90

  4,289

  1,172

  27·33

  19

  0·42

  1990–91

  6,786

  1,649

  24·30

  30

  0·40

  174

  Table 2

  Bankruptcies following Petitions brought by Government Departments 1987–93 (where statistics recorded by calendar year) England and Wales

  Inland Revenue

  Percentage of total

  Department of Social Security

  Percentage of total

  1987

  992

  14·18

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1988

  1,363

  17·66

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1989

  1,349

  16·58

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1990

  1,394

  11·56

  190

  1·58

  1991

  1,865

  8·24

  252

  1·11

  1992

  2,003

  6·24

  467

  1·45

  1993

  2,347

  7·58

  219

  0·71

  Source: Board of Inland Revenue; Department of Social Security.

  n.a.=not available.

  Table 3

  Company Winding-Up Orders following Petitions brought by Government Departments 1987–93 (where statistics recorded by calendar years) England and Wales

  Inland Revenue

  Percentage of total

  Department of Social Security

  Percentage of total

  1987

  254

  6·17

  n/a

  n/a

  1988

  237

  6·46

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  314

  7·81

  n/a

  n/a

  1990

  463

  7·75

  221

  3·70

  1991

  786

  9·39

  162

  1·94

  1992

  986

  10·13

  190

  1·95

  1993

  812

  9·71

  289

  3·46

  n/a = not available

  Source: Board of Inland Revenue; Department of Social Security.

  Table 4

  Bankruptcy Orders following Petitions brought by Government Departments 1987–93 (where statistics recorded by fiscal years) England and Wales

  Bankruptcy Orders

  Customs and Excise

  Percentage of total

  1987–88

  7,365

  778

  10·56

  1988–89

  7,597

  1,010

  13·29

  1989–90

  8,680

  1,047

  12·06

  1990–91

  14,379

  1,394

  9·69

  1991–92

  26,186

  3,025

  11·55

  1992–93

  33,152

  3,726

  11·24

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry; Board of Customs and Excise.
  175

  Company winding-up orders

  Customs and Excise

  Percentage of total

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Percentage of total

  1991–92

  8,911

  2,098

  23·54

  16

  0·19

  1992–93

  9,542

  3,434

  35·99

  12

  0·14

  Source: Board of Customs and Excise; Department of Trade and Industry.

  Iron and Steel Exports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will produce a table to show the value of United Kingdom iron and steel exports and the proportion thereof exported to the rest of the EC single market for each of the last 10 calendar years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is provided in the table.

  United Kingdom exports of iron and steel

  Year

  EC total (£ millions)

  World total (£ millions)

  Proportion exported to the EC percentage

  1983

  531·9

  1,330·7

  40·0

  1984

  636·8

  1,528·9

  41·7

  1985

  824·2

  1,856·2

  44·4

  1986

  917·9

  1,866·5

  49·2

  1987

  994·3

  2,153·4

  46·2

  1988

  1,230·3

  2,392·0

  51·4

  1989

  1,679·3

  2,893·8

  58·0

  1990

  1,805·1

  3,036·0

  59·5

  1991

  1,771·5

  3,011·3

  58·8

  1992

  1,857·4

  3,004·4

  618

  Source: Business Monitor MA20, overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Accounts Services Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the report on the Accounts Services Agency by the consultants PA Consultancy Group.

  Mr. Eggar
  The report by the PA Consulting Group "Options for the Accounts Services Agency" contains a considerable amount of commercially sensitive information whose publication could affect the tendering process. It has been decided, therefore, not to publish the report.

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the list of United Kingdom objective 5(b) areas recently decided by the European Commission.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes. A copy of the Commission's list has been placed in the Library today.

  Batteries Directives
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government will introduce regulations to implement the batteries directives.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Batteries and Accumulators (Containing Dangerous Substances) Regulations 1994—SI 1994/232—have been made and were laid in the House on 7 February 1994. They are now available from HMSO.176
  These regulations relate to primary and secondary batteries which contain specified amounts of lead, mercury or cadmium, and implement certain provisions in directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC. Regulations, which prohibit the marketing of certain alkaline manganese batteries with specified mercury levels, and which relate to the design of certain kinds of appliances so that the battery or accumulator can be readily removed, are due to come into force in Britain on 1 March 1994. The regulation appertaining to the marking of the relevant batteries or accumulators is due to come into force on 1 August 1994. A consultation paper on these regulations was issued in October 1993—DTI press notice P/93/617.

  British Coal Pensions
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the Government's proposals for British Coal pensions after privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 December 1993, c. 739–41]: On arrangements for British Coal pensions after privatisation, I am today placing copies of drafts of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme (Modification) Regulations, British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (Modification) Regulations, Industry-Wide Mineworkers' Pension Scheme Regulations, Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Regulations and Coal Industry (Protected Persons) Regulations in the Libraries of both Houses, together with copies of drafts of the modified MPS and BCSSS schemes, rules and guarantee deeds and drafts of industry-wide MPS and SSS trust deeds and rules.

  These are working drafts which are under discussion with the trustees of the MPS and BCSSS and with British Coal. Copies are being made available to the Standing Committee of the House that is considering the Coal Industry Bill.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution his Department has made in terms of publications, lectures, video tapes or other promotional material in support of energy efficiency week from 12 February.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has organised energy advice week under the banner of its "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" campaign. Local authorities, voluntary groups and the local energy advice centres—run by the Energy Saving Trust—have been involved in a variety of promotional activities including exhibitions, radio and press advertisements and special features, leaflets and posters. My Department has produced the material in conjunction with the Central Office of Information.
  177

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 815, what are the commercial reasons for his refusal to give particulars of the fees paid to the consultants carrying out the review of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: I do not intend to disclose the fees paid to the consultants working on the Patent Office review because this might set a benchmark for other consultants bidding for similar work. This could affect future competitive tenders and so constrain my Department's ability to achieve best value for money for taxpayers.

  Private Medical Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role his Department has in the regulation of private medical services.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for those decisions which fall to him under the Fair Trading Act 1973 in respect of reports by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. One recent report concerned private medical services.

  Korea
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the time scale envisaged for the implementation by Korea of legislation to outlaw pirating of trade marks by the Korean Government under the general agreement on tariffs and trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 February 1994]: Trade marks are protectable by registration in Korea, as in other countries. Registration gives the right to take action against pirate marks. In addition, Korea plans to strengthen the powers of the customs authorities to impound imports or exports of goods which infringe trade mark rights.

  As a developing country, Korea will have five years from entry into force of the agreement establishing the world trade organisation, which will replace the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to make such changes as might be necessary in its trade mark and other intellectual property laws and procedures to comply with the agreement. The WTO agreement is expected to enter into force at the earliest at the beginning of 1995.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Care in the Community
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many assessments were carried out in each unit of management within the health and social services boards in the last year for which figures are available; and, of those assessed, how many were not referred for further care and how many were referred to institutional care in(a) the statutory sector, (b) the voluntary sector and (c) the private sector.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not available. Figures for assessments of individual need for 178
  community care were not routinely collected prior to April 1993. In the six-month period from April to September 1993, 3,521 assessments were completed in Northern Ireland. Of those assessed, 2,258 had been provided with community care packages at 30 September 1993. One thousand and sixty-two—47 per cent.—of these were referred for domiciliary care, 483–21 per cent.—for residential care, and 713–32 per cent.—for nursing home care. One hundred and eighty-eight clients were placed in board-managed residential homes.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many additional staff have been recruited by each of the health and social services boards; and how many staff have been transferred to the community care role in the last year.

  Mr. Ancram
  There has been a reduction in the number of staff employed in each health and social services board over the period September 1992 to September 1993. The percentage reductions are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Eastern health and social services board

  9·56

  Northern health and social services board

  6·01

  Southern health and social services board

  4·67

  Western health and social services board

  7·74

  Information on the transfer of staff to the community care role is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Notes:

  1. Directly managed units and HSS trusts within each board area are included in the calculations.

  2. The Eastern ambulance- trust, blood transfusion service, provider support unit and supplies distribution centre are excluded from Eastern board calculations.

  3. Traditional nurse students who are employees of the boards are included. Project 2000 nurse students are not employees and are therefore excluded.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the reasons for deciding not to meet the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association and Crestacare to discuss the implications of the way community care has been introduced in the Province; if he will now meet them; and what role he sees for Northern Ireland Care Homes Association and Crestacare in the future management of community care.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend is to meet the chief executive of Crestacare in the near future. Although any future requests for meetings will be considered on their merit, it is not possible for my noble Friend to accede to every request for a meeting. Many issues are more usefully discussed with Department officials or health and social services boards.

  My noble Friend believes that both Crestacare and the northern Northern Ireland Care Homes Association have an important contribution to make in providing residential and nursing home care to people for whom such care is purchased by boards. It is also expected that they will have an increasing role to play in the provision of domiciliary services.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent to which current care provisions in the community
  179
  need to be altered to comply with new EC requirements on lifting and handling; and what funds he is making available for this.

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Health and social services boards are expected to comply with current EC regulations on lifting and handling within existing resources.

  Hospital Beds
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what data he has on the current occupancy of hospital beds in all general medical units, geriatric units and psycho-geriatric units; how many additional patients have been accommodated outside these wards; how these have changed since 1 April 1993; and what are the budgetary implications of these figures.

  Mr. Ancram
  The occupancy rates for the hospital specialties requested for the two quarters from April 1993 to 30 September 1993, the latest dates for which information is available, is as follows:

  Consultants main specialty1

  Average occupancy

  Per cent (1 April 1993–30 June 1993)

  Per cent. (1 July 1990–30 September 1993)

  General medicine

  81·4

  78·3

  Geriatric medicine

  83·2

  83·5

  Old age psychiatry

  86·2

  82·7

  1 All patients under the care of the consultant are included in the above figures regardless of ward location.

  The other information requested is not available.

  Down and Lisburn Unit of Management
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect on parity of treatment of the secondment of officers from the Down and Lisburn unit of management to a new private company.

  Mr. Ancram
  No officers from the Down and Lisburn unit of management have been seconded to a new private company.

  NHS Trusts
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for training managers of trusts in entrepreneurial skills.

  Mr. Ancram
  Significant additional funds have been set aside specifically to support the development of managers in the purchasing and providing roles, including HSS trusts, to ensure an excellence of delivery of Northern Ireland health and personal social services.

  The assessment of individual training needs within HSS trusts is a matter for the trusts themselves, but where specific requirements are indentified, the HPSS management executive is empowered to co-ordinate or facilitate the provision of suitable packages. HPSS managers participate in a range of local and national training programmes.

  Staff at director level in HSS trusts are eligible to participate in the top management development programme, an integral part of which is the formulation of a personal development plan. The plan aims to identify specific gaps in skills which can then be filled with appropriate training and development packages.
  180

  Care of the Elderly
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has available on the development of community care structures which would meet the needs of the elderly, with particular reference to day care, respite care, outreach and provision of meals.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department regularly monitors health and social services boards' community care structures and services to ensure that they are capable of delivering the residential and non-residential care required by their resident populations. The social services inspectorate is also engaged in monitoring the development and quality of community care services.

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 18 February at column 1010, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Professor D. Rea

  Mrs. M. A. Adams

  Mrs. M. Connolly

  Professor P. Daws

  Mr. R. Frost

  Mrs. R. Greene

  Dr. W. Hylands

  Miss R. Jarman

  Mr. J. G. Kelly

  Mr. P. McConnellogue

  Mrs. A. McFerran

  Miss D. McNamee

  Ms G. Pettigrew

  Mr. J. Quinn

  Miss R. Weir

  Dr. B. Scott

  Mr. R. Wilson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Ulster Folk and Transport museum.

  Mr. Ancram
  Membership of the Ulster Folk and Transport museum is as follows:

  Professor F. D. W. Harkness (Chairman)

  Alderman Mrs. H. E. Bradford (Vice-Chairman)

  Mrs. P. Farren

  Mr. J. C. Henry

  Mr. M. McSparran

  Mr. H. Faulkner

  Mr. J. Irvine

  Miss R. Ni Bhaoill

  Councillor J. Stephenson

  Councillor N. McCausland

  181

  Professor R. H. Buchanan

  Mr. B. Crooks

  Councillor N. Mulligan

  Alderman S. Semple

  Councillor Mrs. T. Black.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Council for Catholic maintained schools.

  Mr. Ancram
  The members currently appointed are:

  Bishops and bishops' nominees

  Bishop Walsh

  Bishop Daly

  Bishop Brooks

  Monsignor McEntegart

  Monsignor Cahill

  Rev. J. Mullan

  Trustee representatives

  MonsignorM. Dallat

  Rev.I. McQuillan

  Rev. C. O`Byrne

  Archdeacon Hamill

  Mr. E. McGrade

  Mr. J. Smyth

  Mr. F. Magee

  Mrs. M. Pederson

  Mrs. P. Carville

  Mr. S. Doherty

  Dr. A. Moran

  Brother Carroll

  Mr. B. Curran

  Sister O. McConville

  Head of department representatives

  Mrs. M. R. Cooper

  Mr. G. J. Murray

  Mr. O. Corrigan

  Mr. J. V. Simpson

  Mr. T. Donaghy

  Mr. J. Simpson

  Mrs. M. McAvoy

  Mrs. E. Waterson, MBE

  Parent representatives

  Four vacancies

  Assistant teacher representatives

  Four vacancies

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Ulster museum.

  Mr. Ancram
  Membership of the Ulster museum is as follows:

  Mr. M. Solomon (Chairman)

  Mr. C. Ward CBE (Vice-Chairman)

  Professor R. A. McLaughlin

  Ms C. Nicholl

  Mrs. M. K. Mooney

  Miss C. Dickson

  Cllr. I. Adamson

  Cllr. J. Alderdice

  Cllr. H. Smith

  Professor P. Compton

  Professor E. Thomas

  Ald. Mrs. H. E. Bradford

  Cllr. J. Ramsay

  Cllr. R. A. McIlroy

  (One Vacancy)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council.

  Mr. Ancram
  Membership of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council is as follows:182

  Professor D. McCloy

  Mr. F. Adair

  Mrs. M. T. Breslin

  Mr. S. Costello

  Mrs. D. Frazer

  Professor S. Fulton

  Mr. E. Gamble

  Sr. Genevieve O'Farrell

  Miss Aileen Graham

  Mr. D. E. McElroy

  Mr. N. McLaughlin

  Mrs. F. MacMahon

  Mr. T. Nolan

  Dr. R. Rodgers

  Mrs. J. Ruddock

  Mr. J. Thompson

  Mr. J. Young

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland citizens charter panel.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The members of the Northern Ireland citizens charter panel are as follows:

  Mr. P. Killen, OBE JP (Chairman)

  Mrs. M. Elliott

  Mrs. A. Hailes

  Lady Anne McCollum

  Mr. M. Murphy, OBE

  Mr. A. Sherrard

  Mr. J. V. Simpson

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Thames Cockle Industry
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about progress towards deciding on the proposed regulating order for the Thames cockle industry.

  Mr. Jack
  As I indicated in my reply of 17 December 1993, column 1070, this is now in the hands of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee, which is seeking to resolve the concerns of objectors to the proposed order.

  Sheep Meat Quotas
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to compensate those sheepmeat farmers who have had to lease quotas but who at a future date receive quotas from an increased national reserve.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have already put in place special measures to help sheep farmers who have chosen to acquire quota by release. Such producers will not have quota withdrawn if they underuse their leased quota. Nor will the leased quota reduce their entitlement to quota from the national reserve. The Government have no plans to reimburse the costs involved in commercial decisions to acquire quota by lease.

  New Forest
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will give details of fees payable to any outside consultants together with details of those projects on which consultants have been employed by the New Forest Committee and details of the duration of any projects;

  (2) if she will publish details of the current level of funding received by the New Forest Committee, indicating

  183
  the source of such funding together with details of the projects on which this money has been expended since the committee's inception.

  Mr. Jack
  Consultants were employed on the following projects:

  1. Definition of boundary of New Forest heritage area, January to June 1991, £20,000—land use consultants.

  2. Advice on proposed West Wellow bypass, September to October 1991 and June to July 1993, £4,500—land use consultants.

  3. New Forest heritage area boundary: representation at New Forest local plans inquiry, January to July 1992, £2,625—land use consultants.

  4. Research into recreational use of horses in the New Forest heritage area, January to September 1994, £17,000—Royal agricultural college—75 per cent. of cost to be met by the Department of the Environment.

  The New Forest Committee's 1993–94 budget of £110,800 is funded by the following bodies:

  £

  Department of the Environment

  20,000

  Forestry Commission

  18,160

  Countryside Commission

  18,160

  English Nature

  18,160

  Hampshire County Council

  18,160

  New Forest District Council

  18,160

  In 1993–94, in addition to the projects carried out by consultants which are listed above, the committee granted £2,500 to establish the New Forest common housing trust, £550 towards management work on common land adjacent to the forest, £1,350 towards the publication of an outdoor education providers leaflet and £150 towards the publication of a student factfile.

  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of the current and projected administrative budget of the New Forest Committee, inclusive of staffing levels.

  Mr. Jack
  The New Forest Committee's administrative budget is currently £93,400 and will be £95,100 in 1994–95. The budgets include provision for a New Forest officer, an assistant New Forest officer and a New Forest clerk.

  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish a list of the statutory bodies currently responsible for environmental protection, forestry, animal welfare, administration and planning within the New Forest.

  Mr. Jack
  The primary statutory bodies are the Forestry Commission, English Nature, New Forest verderers, MAFF, Hampshire county council and New Forest district council.

  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of the proposed projects and their estimated costs which are under consideration by the New Forest Committee.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given:

  1. A contribution of about £14,000 over three years to the Countryside Commission's all parks survey.

  2. £3,500 in 1993–94 for the preparation of a public transport timetable.

  3. A contingency sum of £4,800 in 1994–95 for consultancy work associated with major road schemes and other major infrastructure schemes which may affect the forest.

  184

  4. £4,600 in 1994–95 for the publication of a consultation paper, arising from the proposed management strategy.

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cows in Cheshire herds recently tested proved bovine immunodeficiency virus positive; what effects have been observed in the cows; what precautions have been taken to protect consumers; whether their milk is still being sold; whether the infected cows are to be destroyed; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Limited serological evidence of bovine immunodefiency virus has recently been found in one herd in Cheshire where two animals gave positive results to two or more of three different serological tests for BIV. Investigations into the herd continue. We understand that, at present, the milk from this herd is not being taken by the Milk Marketing Board. I refer the hon. Member to my answers to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), on 18 February,Official Report, columns 1057–58, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), on 10 February, Official Report, column 430. One animal is being purchased for detailed investigation but we have no plans for compulsory slaughter of the cattle.

  Banned Beef and Dairy Products
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the countries that currently ban imports of British(a) bovines, (b) beef and (c) dairy products.

  Mr. Soames
  The countries for which we are aware such import bans exist are as follows:

  (a) Bovines

  Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Finland, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Japan, Malaya—Sarawak only—Mexico, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Syria, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, United States of America and the former USSR;

  (b) Beef

  Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Mexico, Paraguay, Poland Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Taiwan, UAE and former Yugoslavia;

  (c) Dairy Products

  Argentina, China, Jordan, Libya, Syria.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish a list of the equipment stolen from her Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: The following table covering the years 1990–1993 are extracted from the departmental losses register which records theft, fraud and arson as a single category.

  Details of equipment stolen

  Approximate valu £

  1990–91

  Office Equipment

  3,009

  Photographic Equipment

  2,913

  Agricultural Equipment

  76

  Depot Equipment

  4,568

  185

  Details of equipment stolen

  Approximate value £

  Vehicles and Accessories

  4,550

  General Equipment under £1,000

  450

  1990–91 Total MAFF

  15,566

  1991–92

  Office Equipment

  13,882

  Agricultural Equipment

  2,133

  Depot Euipment

  376

  Laboratory Equipment

  91

  Vehicles and Accessories

  13,500

  General Equipment under £1,000

  1,142

  1991–92 Total MAFF

  31,124

  1992–93

  Office Equipment

  58,770

  Photographic Equipment

  8,003

  Agricultural Equipment

  2,040

  Depot Equipment

  7,144

  Laboratory Equipment

  6,306

  Vehicles and Accessories

  15,755

  General Equipment under £1,000

  2,205

  1992–93 Total MAFF

  100,223

SCOTLAND

  Wick River Piers
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what technical appraisal his officials have tnade of the condition of the north and south piers of the Wick river basin; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The condition of the north and south piers at the Wick river basin is a matter for Wick harbour trust. I understand that the trust's consultants appraised the piers in question and that their report is being considered by the trust.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to assist Wick harbour trust to protect riparian property owners on the Wick river from structural damage due to the threatened collapse of two piers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Any remedial work to prevent the collapse of the piers is a matter for Wick harbour trust. Central Government assistance for the harbour at Wick is confined to the fishery interest. Protection of property is the owner's responsibility.

  A7
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish the route action plan carrying the A7 trunk road south of Hawick.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A public information leaflet is presently being prepared setting out the route action plan for the A7 trunk road south of Hawick. It is my intention to publish this shortly. A copy of the A7 route action plan summary report will also be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  186

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards the extension of compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since we announced in November 1992 our intention further to extend CCT and to set up an internal accounting framework for corporate services, we have been in discussion with local authority associations and the Accounts Commission. We are now in a position to consult more widely and are today issuing two separate consultation documents: one on construction and property services and the other on the statement of support service costs, which is the proposed name for the internal accounting framework.

  The consultation document on construction and property services includes a definition of those services, indicates how much of this work authorities will be required to subject to CCT and gives details of modifications which we intend to make to the statutory framework for competitive tendering. We propose that local authorities be required to subject to competition 65 per cent., by value, of all construction and property work. In addition, the Government propose that authorities will be allowed to retain £450,000-worth of work in-house without going out to tender. This recognises that certain construction and property work should be retained in-house both to enable an authority to fulfil its democratic responsibilities and to act as an intelligent client for bought-in services.

  The consultation document on the statement of support service costs, SSSC, includes worked examples to show how the SSSC will work in practice. Under those proposals, local authorities will be required to show how their support costs are allocated to front-line services. This will enable internal customers to have more information about the costs they are incurring and will ensure greater transparency of financial information.

  We propose to extend CCT to new services in three tranches between October 1997 and April 1998. The proposed implementation date for the SSSC is 1 April 1997.

  Copies of both consultation documents will be placed in the House Library.

  Damp Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will release dedicated funding to enable Scottish local authorities to eradicate dampness in their housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources totalling some £405 million were made available to local authorities for capital investment in public sector housing in 1993–94. These allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for local authorities themselves to determine their own policies and priorities for meeting local housing needs including projects to deal with dampness. However, as part of the new housing plan system all local housing authorities have been asked to develop a strategy for tackling damp housing in their areas.

  I will announce the allocations for 1994–95 shortly.
  187

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many senior citizens are currently living in local authority sheltered housing complexes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures are held centrally only on the number of sheltered dwellings in Scotland and this was 32,202 at 31 March 1992. This figure is included in the publication "Housing Trends in Scotland: Quarter ended 30 June 1992—Table 19, HSG/1992/8" which is available in the Library.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will grant additional dedicated funding to Scottish local authorities to enable them to adapt more local authority houses to suit the needs of persons released into community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources totalling some £405 million have been made available to local authorities for capital investment in public sector housing in 1993–94. These allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for local authorities themselves to determine their own policies and priorities for meeting local housing needs.

  I will announce the overall allocations for 1994–95 shortly. These will include additional resources to enable local housing authorities to increase their contribution to the implementation of the community care policy.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Community Education Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following current members of the Scottish Community Education Council were appointed by the Secretary of State:

  Mrs. Barbara Vaughan, Chairman

  Mr. Robert Copleton

  Mrs. Astrid Ritchie

  Mr. Garth Morrison, CBE

  Mrs. Maureen Reid

  Mr. Fraser Patrick

  Mr. Derek McGinn

  Mr. Alan Blackie

  Mr. Ian Graham

  Councillor Mrs. Valerie Maclver

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The members of the board of Highlands and Islands Enterprise are set out in the table:

  Chairman

  A. F. Morrison, CBE

  Members

  J. Goodlad

  J. A. D. Harrison, OBE

  Dr. J. Hunter

  A. S. Macdonald, CBE

  Ms V. MacIver

  J. A. Mackay

  N. A. McAndrew

  188

  J. D. M. Robertson, CBE

  J. Shaw-Stewart

  P. Timms, MBE

  Chief Executive (ex-officio member)

  I. A. Robertson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Irvine development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  From 1 January 1994 members of Irvine development corporation board are as follows:

  Maurice Crichton, CBE (Chairman)

  Mrs. Jeanette Mason (Deputy Chairman)

  Councillor Jack Carson

  David Jerdan

  Alan Jones

  Archibald Walker

  William B. Miller, OBE

  Councillor Thomas H. Colyer

  Charles Maclean

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) who are the members currently appointed to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland;

  (2) who are the members currently appointed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Appointments to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for Scotland are matters for the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish tourist board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current members of the Scottish tourist board are:

  Ian D. Grant, CBE (Chairman)

  Mrs. Philippa Grant

  Scott Grier, OBE

  Mrs. Barbara Kelly, CBE

  John F. Loughray

  Ian Milton

  lain A. Robertson

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the East Kilbride development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  From 1 January 1994 members of East Kilbride development corporation board are as follows:

  Mr. J. A. Denholm CBE Chairman

  Harley Marshall JP Deputy Chairman

  Mrs. Elaine McDonald

  James R. Mowat

  lain J. A. Dyer MBE

  Councillor Stewart Crawford

  Councillor Colin Robb

  Dr. David M. Sanderson JP

  Mrs. Marilyn M. Orcharton

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish transport group.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The members of the Scottish transport group are:

  Ian S. Irwin CBE Chairman

  Ronald S. McNeill CBE

  Robert S. Temple

  189

  John Stark

  Archibald Douglas

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Lang
  The members who are currently appointed to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council are:

  Professor John C. Shaw, CBE, Chairman

  Professor John Sizer, CBE, Chief Executive and ex-officio member

  Professor Michael Bond

  Dr. Christopher Carter

  Professor John Darby

  Eileen Dunning, OBE

  Professor Robert Jack, CBE

  John McClelland

  Sir Ronald Miller, CBE

  Professor Janet Sprent

  Professor David Wallace

  Sir Ian Wood, CBE

  James Wright

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The members are:

  Professor Philip Love, CBE, Chairman

  Duncan White, OBE

  Mrs. Joyce Simpson, LLB

  Councillor Ian Buchanan

  Lieutenant-Colonel John Murray

  R. Gavin Burnett

  Hugh Torrance

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Horse Race Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The members are:

  Mr. Colin N. McEachran, QC, Chairman

  Mr. Peter C. Brown, CA

  Mr. William S. Linkie, CBE

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Sports Council.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The current membership of the Scottish Sports Council is:

  Chairman

  Graeme M. Simmers, OBE

  Vice-Chairman

  Alan Grosset

  Members

  Michael Barron

  Alan Blackshaw, OBE

  John N. M. Frame

  Miss Lesley Grant, MBE

  John Loughray

  G. Malcolm Murray

  Fred Nelson

  Dr. Myra Nimmo

  Mrs. Evlyn Raistrick

  J. Neil Stevenson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Glenrothes development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  From 1 January 1994 members of Glenrothes development corporation board are as follows:

  Professor C. Blake, CBE Chairman

  David B. B. Smith, OBE Deputy Chairman

  190

  Mrs. Frances Havenga

  Councillor John MacDougall, JP

  lain A. McCrone, CBE

  Douglas C. Mason

  James A. G. Fiddes

  Mrs. Jane Buchanan, JP

  Robert J. Taylor

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Scottish Film Council.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is as follows:

  Appointed by the Secretary of State

  Mr. Allan Shiach (Chairman)

  Ms Maggi Allan

  Mr. Trevor Davies

  Mr. Kenneth MacQuarrie

  Mr. Fraser Campbell

  Mr. David Hutchison

  Ms Margaret Matheson

  Mr. Stephen Foster

  Co-opted Members

  Ms Seona Robertson

  Ms Mary Picken

  Mr. Simon Perry

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for the appointments of the three co-opted member of the Scottish Film council.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The committee's membership is as follows:

  Mr. H. M. Garland, MBE (Chairman)

  Mr. J. E. D. Cormie, OBE (Deputy Chairman)

  Mrs. J. Cameron, MBE, JP

  Mr. P. Collier, MBE

  Mr. C. Douglas, MBE

  Mr. A. Harper, BEM

  Miss M. Hendry

  Mr. R. A. J. Moodie

  Mr. J. Pollock

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the terms of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 the Secretary of State may nominate four persons to the General Teaching Council for Scotland. The current nominees are:

  Jack D. Denny

  Mrs. Angela Gardner

  Alexander D. Nicol

  Mrs. Barbara Steele

  Of the remaining 45 members of the council, 30 are elected by registered teachers and 15 are appointed by relevant bodies such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Cumbernauld development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  From 1 January 1994 members of Cumbernauld development corporation board are as follows:

  David M. Mitchell, CBE Chairman

  Tom M. Barrie, JP Deputy Chairman

  Professor John A. Dawson

  Mrs. Rose Mary McKenna, JP

  James Burnett

  191

  John S. Moreland, OBE

  Mr. P. G. Lockett

  Robert R. C. Taylor

  Ian R. Young

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Livingston development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  From 1 January 1994 members of Livingston development corporation board are as follows:

  Robert S. Watt, CBE Chairman

  Councillor Brian A. Meek, OBE, JP Deputy Chairman

  Mrs. Isobel Brydie, JP

  Charles A. Boyle

  Councillor William R. V. Percy

  John S. Young

  Ian Ivory

  Councillor Keith Geddes

  Gordon S. Milne

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Current membership of the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum comprises:

  Mr. Neil Galbraith, Chairman

  Miss May Barclay Mrs. Elizabeth McGill

  Mrs. Anna Smith

  Mr. Alistair MacLachlan

  Mr. Patrick Tobin

  Mr. Ban McGettrick

  Mr. Tom Bumess

  Dr. Ruth Jonathan

  Dr. Richard Dennis

  Dr. Mary Simpson

  Mr. Richard Cummings

  Mr. Hamish Ross

  Miss Rosemary McDonald

  M8 Kingston Bridge
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the safety of the M8 Kingston bridge in Glasgow; what recent studies have been carried out; what is the estimated cost of repairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Strathclyde regional council has responsibility for the Kingston bridge as local roads authority. The council has kept the Scottish Office informed over the last few years of the emerging problems of the bridge. The council has undertaken investigations into all aspects of the bridge and the approach roads. To date some £8·6 million has been spent on repairs, investigations and monitoring. The estimated cost of repairs to the bridge is £11·3 million with a further estimate of £25·7 million for repairs to the north and south approach roads.

  Forestry
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the forestry review group's report.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: Forestry Ministers expect to receive the review group's advice soon.
  192

  Homosexual Offences
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the number of prosecutions of cases since December 1991 of consensual homosexual acts where(a) both of the participants were aged under 16 years, (b) where one of the participants was aged under 16 years and the other aged between 16 years and 18 years and (c) where one of the participants was aged under 16 years and the other aged between 18 years and 21 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 8 February, Official Report, column 180, since December 1991, how many prosecutions have been taken out of cases of consenting homosexual acts where both of the participants were over 16 years but one or both were under 18 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: Information is not held centrally on the ages of the participants involved in consensual homosexual acts involving one or more parties aged below 21 which have been the subject of a prosecution.

  Salmon
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and the Norwegian Fisheries Minister to discuss the state of the European farmed salmon market.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: My honourable Friend the Minister for Agriculture and the Environment in Scotland had a very constructive meeting on Friday 18 February with Mr. Jan Olsen, the Norwegian Fisheries Minister. They agreed that the present market situation for salmon is a source of concern, and that outlook is also worrying due to the mismatch between production and what the European market can absorb. They also agreed that these problems ought to be addressed urgently by the respective industries.

  In the light of these constructive exchanges my Department is taking steps towards bringing the respective industries together, initially on an informal basis. I hope that this will mark the start of a process aimed at addressing the imbalance between supply and demand.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if Her Majesty's Government formally requested an extension of the minimum import price for salmon prior to the expiry of the safeguard action on 31 January;

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government have formally requested the European Union for a reimposition of a minimum import price of salmon since the expiry of the previous minimum import price on 31 January.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: No; but on 5 February 1994 the European Commission reintroduced minimum import prices for salmon at slightly higher rates than those which had applied up to 31 January.

  Forestry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration the Forestry Review Group gave to the assertions and recommendations made in "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme" (Cm. 2429) when coming to its conclusions.
  193
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: Ministers set up the Forestry Review Group to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, to review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands, and to make proposals which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to our other economic and environmental policies.

  Our forestry policy objectives are set out in "Forest Policy for Great Britain" which we published in September 1991. "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme" provides a comprehensive account of these objectives and of the action we are taking to achieve them.

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The information requested by the hon. Member is lengthy and will take some time to prepare. I shall write to the hon. Member when the information is compiled and arrange for copies of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of 3 February 1994, Official Report, column 775.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of the names and business interests of all the current forestry commissioners; how many hours each commissioner works each week on behalf of the commission; and what is the salary of each commissioner.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Chairman:

  Sir Raymond Johnstone, CBE

  Part-time Commissioner; annual salary: £34,060

  Business interests:

  President, Murray Johnstone Holdings Ltd.

  Non-Executive Director, Murray Enterprise plc

  Non-Executive Director, Murray Income Trust plc

  Non-Executive Director, Murray International Trust plc

  Non-Executive Director, Smaller Markets Trust plc

  Chairman, Murray Split Capital Trust plc

  Non-Executive Director, Murray Ventures plc

  Also Non-Executive Director or Chairman of various companies wholly owned by the above Investment Trusts

  Non-Executive Director, Alva Estates Ltd.

  Chairman, Dominion Insurance Holdings Ltd.

  Also Chairman of its wholly owned subsidiaries

  Non-Executive Director, Glasgow Cultural Enterprise Ltd.

  Also of its wholly owned subsidiary

  Chairman, Randotte (1992) plc.

  Non-Executive Director, Scottish Amicable Life

  Assurance Society

  Non-Executive Director, Southpark Flats Ltd.

  Chairman, Summit Group plc

  194

  Director General and Deputy Chairman: Mr. Robin Cutler

  Full-time Commissioner

  Annual salary: In the range £64,307-£75,328 (Grade 2)

  No business interests

  Mr. Roger Bradley

  Full-time Commissioner

  Annual salary: In the range £51,360-£59,599 (Grade 3)

  No business interests

  Mr. David Foot

  Full-time Commissioner

  Annual salary: In the range £51,360-£59,599 (Grade 3)

  No business interests

  Mr. David Grundy

  Full-time Commissioner

  Annual salary: In the range £51,360–09,599 (Grade 3)

  No business interests

  Miss Bridget Bloom OBE

  Part-time Commissioner; annual salary: £6,320

  Business interests:

  Commissioner, Meat and Livestock Commission

  Mr. Robin Grove-White

  Part-time Commissioner; annual salary: £6,320

  Business interests:

  Director, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University

  Director, Greenpeace UK

  Mr. Gavin Laird CBE

  Part-time Commissioner; annual salary: £6,320

  Business interests:

  General Secretary, Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union

  Governor, Atlantic College

  Non-executive Director, Bank of England

  Non-executive Director, Britannia Life

  Non-executive Director, GEC Scotland

  Member, London Committee of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry

  Non-executive Director, Scottish Television Non-executive Director, The Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Mr. Terence Mallinson

  Part-time Commissioner; annual salary £6,320

  Business interests:

  Non-executive Director, Suffolk Apple Juice and Cider Company Ltd.

  Sir Michael Strang Steel Bt.Part-time Commissioner; annual salary £6,320

  Business interests:

  Chairman and Non-executive Director, Alba Trees plc

  Manager, Philiphaugh Trust Estate

  Mr. Charles Woosnam CBE

  Part-time Commissioner; annual salary £6,320

  Business interests:

  Consultant, Woosnam and Tyler, Chartered Surveyors and Land Agents

  Full-time commissioners work standard civil service conditioned hours of 42 hours per week, including lunch breaks. Part-time Commissioners work irregular hours with no fixed number of hours per week.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many forests in the United Kingdom are owned by Forestry Commission commissioners; and whether such commissioners are in a position to benefit financially themselves from forestry privatisation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: The following Forestry Commission commissioners own forests in the United Kingdom:

  Sir Raymond Johnstone CBE: 34 hectares

  Sir Michael Strang Steel Bt: 540 hectares

  Mr. C. R. Woosnam CBE: 80 hectares

  These forests are privately owned. Any changes in the future ownership of the Forestry Commission's forests would not therefore affect them and would not put these commissioners in a position to benefit financially.
  195
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which counties for England, Wales and Scotland, the largest area of Forestry Commission woodland has been disposed of in accordance with the terms of the Forestry Act 1981 in absolute terms and as a proportion of total Forestry Commission land.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: The information is given below.

  Country

  County/Region

  Area sold (hectares)

  Area as proportion of FC land in county/region (percentage)

  England

  North Yorkshire

  3,993

  17

  Wales

  Dyfed

  4,088

  12

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  18,723

  14

  Prisons (Visiting Committees)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will continue the present practice of all regional councils and some district councils having representation on visiting committees for prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The draft revised Prison and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules issued for consultation last September included proposals to change the size of, and local authority representation on, the visiting committees for Scottish adult penal establishments. We are still considering all the comments received, but a draft will be laid before Parliament in the next few months.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will exempt Cornton Vale prison from his plans' to confine prison visiting committees' local authority representation to those of the district council and the regional council in which the prison lies.

  Lord James-Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The draft revised Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules issued for consultation last September included proposals to change the size of, and local authority representation on, the visiting committee for the adult penal establishment at Cornton Vale. We are still considering all the comments received, but a draft will be laid before Parliament in the next few months.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects each of Scotland's development corporations to cease letting their existing properties when they become vacant.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: In the period to their wind-up, development corporations will pursue their policies for letting vacant industrial and commercial properties and land until such time as there is an agreement for the sale or transfer of the property concerned. As to vacant housing, it is for each development corporation to decide in the period prior to the ballot of tenants whether to re-let the house or to sell it to a housing association or approved landlord as part of the corporation's initiatives to achieve diversification of tenure.
  196

EMPLOYMENT

  Fireworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the importation of fireworks.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Imported fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom must meet the same safety standards as those which are manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated value of fireworks imported into the United Kingdom annually for each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the importation of dangerous fireworks into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received representations from several sources expressing concern that a reduction in safety standards may result from the removal of import licensing for fireworks following the creation of the European single market. I have been given assurances by the Health and Safety Executive that controls are being maintained by the restrictions on supply introduced by the Placing on the Market and Supervision of Transfers of Explosives Regulations 1993.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to prevent the importation into the United Kingdom of fireworks that are dangerous to users and spectators or likely to be a fire hazard.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following the establishment of the single European market, import licence controls on all explosives, including fireworks were removed on 1 December 1993. These controls were replaced by a requirement under the Placing on the Market and Supervision of Transfers of Explosives Regulations 1993 for explosives supplied in the United Kingdom whatever their origin, to be authorised by the Health and Safety Executive. In the case of fireworks, this requires compliance with British standard 7114 or an equivalent standard.

  Brixham Jobcentre
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the duties of the eight staff at the Fish Quay office in Brixham and the nature of their administration support to the Brixham jobcentre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 22 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the duties of the eight staff at the Fish Quay office in Brixham and the nature of their administrative support to the Brixham Jobcentre.

  197
  The eight staff employed at the Fish Quay, Brixham are involved in the maintenance of claims to unemployment benefits of approximately 1,400 claimants and the payment of training allowances to 50 trainees on Training for Work. The office also maintains the claims to benefit made by Share Fishermen; is responsible for making referrals to the Benefits Adjudication Office; and for liaising with the local Benefits Agency.
  However, because the premises are split, the ability of the staff at the Fish Quay to operate as part of the Back to Work Team linking with advisers and vacancy staff in the Jobcentre is reduced.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent on refurbishing the Brixham jobcentre in each of the financial years since 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 22 February 1994:
  The Secreary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how much was spent on refurbishing the Brixham Jobcentre in each of the financial years since 1989–90.
  I repeat my earlier response to your Parliamentary Question No. 7067 that no funds have been spent on refurbishment in 1992 and 1993. During the period 1989 to 1991 a contract was awarded in October 1991 to the value of £19,259 for alterations and refurbishment and further amount of £22,895 was spent on furniture, telephone equipment and new signage.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the obstacles preventing the Brixham jobcentre from offering a full service mentioned in the chief executive's letter of 9 February to the hon. Member for South Ham.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 22 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the obstacles preventing the Brixham Jobcentre from offering a full service mentioned in my earlier letter of 9 February 1994.
  The main obstacle to providing a full service is the space available within the two premises in Brixham. The space requirements calculations carried out in April 1993 indicated a total space requirement for both offices at Brixham of approximately 7,500 square feet. Currently the total space available in both Employment Service (ES) premises is 4,515 square feet. Such a deficit has an obvious detrimental effect to the range of customer services that can be provided, namely:
  (a) virtually no privacy can be provided for clients discussing personal circumstances/problems whilst making their benefit claims or discussing their back to work plans with advisory staff;
  (b) limitations on the siting of Information Technology (IT) equipment have reduced the efficiency and effectiveness of the Jobcentre services. With such limited space the siting of equipment is also causing overcrowding problems reducing the effectiveness of contacts between staff and clients;
  (c) the job display area is cramped and not conducive to calm consideration of job vacancy details;
  (d) there are no facilities for employers to interview job seekers at the Jobcentre;
  198
  (e) operating a split site for such a small team (20 in total) reduces flexibility and effectiveness; with 12 staff at the Jobcentre and eight at the Fish Quay. There is a cost of approximately £70 per month in transporting claims and other paperwork between the two offices;
  (f) in the integrated Jobcentre service currently provided by most Jobcentres now in South West Region the Benefit and Job broking activities work successfully together in a Back to Work Team concept that has proved very successful in terms of service to clients and employers. Such a model is not possible operating as Brixham does in split premises.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work of the Employment Service to help the unemployed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Service is an executive agency reporting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It operates through a network of over 1,000 local offices throughout Britain.

  ES operates a job-broking service, helping to fill employers' vacancies and placing unemployed people into jobs. In 1992–93, ES made 1·47 million placings of unemployed people; in this operational year up to December, it has made 1·26 million placings, 12 per cent. above its profiled target. ES aims especially to help long-term unemployed people, and others at a disadvantage in the labour market; 27 per cent. of the 1992–93 placings were of long-term claimants.

  ES operates a comprehensive system of advisory interviews for unemployed clients. Around 8·5 million such interviews were carried out in 1992–93. At these interviews clients are given information about advisory, job search and training programmes which are available to help them back into work. As well as running programmes itself, ES acts as a gateway to those run by the training and enterprise councils.

  ES has a particular duty to give employment help to unemployed people with a disability. To give support to its local offices in doing this, it has a network of 71 area placing assessment and counselling teams, staffed by disability employment advisers.

  ES also helps unemployed people by income maintenance: by promptly and accurately paying unemployment benefit and income support to clients entitled to receive them.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the ES chief executive to congratulate the agency on its performance in the first half of this operational year. There have been falls in unemployment at an earlier stage in the recovery than anticipated by most observers. The efforts of the ES have assisted in implementing a labour market policy fostering an environment for growth.

  Earnings
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 494, what is his Department's estimate of the relationship between employment levels and earnings.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the Treasury report "The Relationship between Employment and Wages" published in 1985. A copy of the report is available in the Library.
  199

  Barnsley/Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure that Barnsley/Doncaster TEC uses its reserves to further local business; if he will publish a breakdown of the current unused reserves of the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC; how many training programmes are currently being undertaken; and how many employers are providing places for the unemployed within the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Efficiency savings made by training and enterprise councils are reinvested in their work to stimulate economic growth in their local communities. Questions about the reserves of any TEC are for each TEC to answer.

  The training programmes operated by Barnsely and Doncaster TEC are: youth training; training for work; learning for work and business start-up. Although a significant number of youth training and training for work participants undertake work experience on employers' premises as part of their training programmes, information on the number of training places provided by employers is not available.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to take to provide employment protection for part-time workers employed by their existing employer for less than five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Part-time employees already enjoy important statutory rights, regardless of their length of service or hours worked. The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 significantly added to these rights and I have no plans to extend them further.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the Barnsley, East constituency.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In January 1994, the level of unadjusted claimant unemployment in the Barnsley, East constituency was 3,872.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current unemployment figures for the north-west.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the north-west region, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment stood at 308,100 or 10·3 per cent. of the work force in January 1994. This is a fall of 26,400 compared with a year ago.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the numbers of unemployed; and what was the corresponding figure in 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the consistent seasonally adjusted basis, claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom stood at 2,787,600 in January 1994 and 1,100,100 in January 1979.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures available for(a) Harrogate and Knaresborough and (b) Ripon and York travel-to-work areas.
  200
  Miss Widdecombe
  Figures for unadjusted claimant unemployment in January 1994 are given in the table.

  Travel-to-work area

  Level

  Percentage rate

  Harrogate

  2,786

  5·6

  Ripon

  901

  7·1

  York

  7,615

  6·8

  Knaresborough is covered by the Harrogate travel-towork area.

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18 February 1994,Official Report, column 1010.

  Employment (Young People)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures he has planned to help young people in the north-west to find employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The local employment service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help young people in the area find the best and quickest route to employment. In the north-west region, the number of young people in the guarantee group who have waited for more then eight weeks for a youth training place has fallen by 93 per cent. in the last year. The Government intend to improve the range of opportunities available to school leavers still further in the north-west and elsewhere by introducing modern apprenticeships in 1995.

  Carnon Consolidated
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he was consulted by the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the employment effect of the decision not to grant Carnon Consolidated a further loan.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not the Department's policy to answer questions on discussions between Ministers.

  Rail Projects (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the subject of maximising jobs for Londoners in work connected with the Jubilee line extension and other rail projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not the Department's policy to answer questions on discussions between Ministers.
  201

  Workstart Schemes, Norfolk
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the results of(a) North Norfolk action pilot scheme and (b) each of the four workstart schemes set up in 1993 after their first six months of operation showing in each case (i) the number of persons participating, (ii) the number of persons who have subsequently moved into full-time employment and (iii) the number of persons who have ceased to claim unemployment and related benefits after being called in for interviews for work on the schemes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to him in connection with North Norfolk Action on 18 February,Official Report, column 1024.

  On 27 January the number of people in employment supported under workstart in each of the pilot areas was as follows:

  Area

  Number

  South London

  86

  East Kent

  57

  Tyneside

  42

  Devon and Cornwall

  4

  All those participating in the scheme are in regular employment, and will therefore have ceased to claim unemployment and related benefits.

  Remploy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last visited a Remploy factory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last visited a Remploy factory in June 1992. He visited the Swansea factory and was delighted to see at first hand the role Remploy is playing in providing employment opportunities for people with severe disabilities.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the numbers of Remploy workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1993–94 Remploy Ltd. is employing an average of around 8,550 people with severe disabilities.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit the Remploy factory, Wrexham, Clwyd.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he currently has no plans to visit the Remploy factory, Wrexham, Clwyd.

  Earnings
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the average weekly earnings of (i) full-time males, (ii) full-time females and (iii) part-time females in 1978–79 and in the latest year for which data are available in(a) Great Britain, (b) England and (c) London; and what was (c) as a percentage of (b) in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on average weekly earnings of full-time males and full-time females can be 202
  found in tables 12 and 13 of part A of the new earnings survey for each of the years requested. The corresponding information on part-time females is in table 180 of part F. Copies of these are in the Library.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each year since 1979 how many applications for work permits were made on behalf of Cypriot nationals; and what proportion were successful in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost. The number of work permits issued to Cypriot nationals recorded by the overseas labour service computer system, introduced in 1984, is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  49

  1985

  75

  1986

  83

  1987

  71

  1988

  110

  1989

  138

  1990

  120

  1991

  85

  1992

  70

  1993

  53

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for work permits were made, and what proportion were successful, in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information for the full period requested is not available. The number of applications for work permits recorded by the overseas labour service computer system, introduced in 1984, and the proportion which were successful in each year are as follows:

  Applications

  Proportion approved Per cent.

  1984

  20,814

  57·6

  1885

  24,999

  66·3

  1986

  27,499

  68·0

  1987

  28,877

  70·5

  1988

  34,016

  97·1

  1989

  41,629

  91·0

  1990

  47,145

  92·5

  1991

  143519

  87·3

  1992

  56,192

  67·5

  1993

  56,700

  66·6

  1 Changes made to the arrangements for recording applications.

  Job Link Programme
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department has taken since 1992 to extend customised training under the job link programme to include inner-city areas.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: Customised training support for job link is provided by training and enterprise councils where appropriate through training for work and its predecessor,

  203
  employment training. From April 1992 to August 1993 it is estimated that 140,000 inner-city residents in England were helped under those programmes.

  Financial Sector Employees
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table setting out his Department's figures of the total number of people employed in banking, insurance and finance in Greater London in the latest quarter for which figures are available and the equivalent quarters of 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: The available information is given in the table:

  Numbers employed in Greater London in banking, finance, insurance and their business services (SIC 8) (includes employees and self employed only)

  Thousands

  Quarter

  Numbers in employment

  Spring 1989

  595

  Spring 1990

  637

  Spring 1991

  586

  Spring 1992

  523

  Summer 1992

  554

  Spring 1993

  603

  Summer 1993

  600

  Source: Labour force survey—not seasonally adjusted.

HEALTH

  Long-term Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the responsibility of the national health service for people requiring long-term care.

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service has a responsibility to provide long-term care for people who need it for reasons of ill-health. In implementing the new arrangements for community care we have required health and local authorities to clarify their respective responsibilities for long-term care.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the administrative cost of general practitioner fundholding; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management allowance is about 2 per cent. of the budgets set. This is more than offset by the improvements fundholders are achieving in waiting times and quality of care.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about differences in prescribing practices of general practitioner fundholders and other general practitioners; and from what sources that information has been derived.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Prescribing analysis and cost and budget monitoring information provided by the Prescription Pricing Authority shows that fundholders prescribe drugs in generic form more often than non-fundholders—figures for 1992–93 are shown in the 204
  table—that the rate of growth of drug expenditure is about 4 per cent. below that of non-fundholders and that fundholders came in at around their budget levels in each of the last two years.

  Preliminary results from a research study being undertaken by Keele university suggest that there is no evidence that fundholding leads to any reduction in the quality of prescribing and it may lead to improvements.

  Percentage generic prescribing rate 1992–93

  Per cent.

  GP Fundholders

  49

  Non-fundholders

  43

  Oral Health
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her Department's negotiations with representatives of the dental profession.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government have a statutory duty to consult representatives of the dental profession when it proposes changes to their remuneration. Officials of the Department of Health also meet representatives of the dental profession informally, frequently and as the need arises.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the response to the Bloomfield report on oral health strategy.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to publish her response to the Bloomfield report on oral health strategy.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 18 February, at column 1042.

  Old People's Homes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority elderly persons homes have(a) opened and (b) closed within the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We do not yet have national information for the period from 1 April 1993 as the main statistics are collected on a financial year basis.

  Patients
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average annual change in the number of patients treated between(a) 1974 and 1979 and (b) 1979 and the latest 'year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service is treating record numbers of patients. The average annual increase between 1974 and 1979 was 1·3 per cent. The corresponding figure for the period 1979 to 1992–93 was 2·9 per cent.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients were treated in(a) the latest year for which figures are available and (b)

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 7,829,403 episodes of care in 1992–93 compared with 5,400,120 in-patients in 1979. This represents an increase of 30 per cent.
  205

  Genetic Screening
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to respond to the report of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in relation to the insurance consequences of genetic screening.

  Mr. Sackville
  The scope of the report's findings go beyond the interest of the Department of Health. Ministers in this and other Government Departments will want to consider the reaction of public and professional interests before deciding whether action by the Government is needed and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Home Care
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the representations she has received regarding the registration and inspection of home care.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received representations from a variety of organisations. We have no current plans to introduce compulsory registration of home care agencies, but we will review the position in 1995.

  Surgical Operations
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgical operations were completed(a) in 1993 and (b) in 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  Three and a half million in 1992–93 compared with 2·5 million in 1979. Although not directly comparable, the figures are indicative of the marked increase in national health service activity over the period, and in particular the more efficient use of hospital operating theatres.

  Asthma
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to modify "The Health of the Nation" to include asthma as a key medical condition to be tackled by the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. We believe that further development and research is necessary before national targets in respect of asthma can be set. In 1992–93 the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, spent over £1·5 million on research into asthma and areas which may be relevant to the condition.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence has been presented to her Department about the incidence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in the London borough of Greenwich.

  Mr. Sackville
  A copy of the report "Health on the Waterfront" has been forwarded to the Department of Health and is receiving careful attention.

  Personal Social Services
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was, or will be, available to councils for spending on personal social services(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.
  206
  Mr. Bowis
  Net expenditure by local authorities on personal social services in 1978–79 was £1,062 million. In 1994–95 total standard spending for personal social services, including the community care special transitional grant, will be £6,403·2 million, more than twice 1978–79 expenditure in real terms.

  Pathology Services
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with UNI Clinical Laboratories, UCL, about the privatisation of NHS pathology services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In accordance with the Government's market-testing policy and private finance initiative trusts and health authorities are encouraged to contract with private health care providers where it can be shown that there are real benefits to patients in terms of quality and cost-effectiveness. In October 1993, I held a meeting with UNI Clinical Laboratories at the company's request, at which these principles were discussed, as part of a series of meetings with national health service and private sector providers regarding the PH and market testing.

  Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital Trust
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will make public all the documents relating to the future of the Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have already indicated that, following careful consideration of the advice received we made the judgment that proposals to concentrate patient services, over time, at the St. Thomas's site should be pursued by the trust. All information which is necessary for statutory public consultation will be made available before a final decision is made.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her Department is now in a position to offer any additional advice for people suffering from multiple sclerosis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Advice to people suffering from multiple sclerosis will vary according to individual needs and is a professional matter for the doctors and consultants looking after them.

  Health Service Reforms
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a further statement about the progress of the health -service reforms.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The separation of the purchasing and provider functions is now virtually complete. Four hundred and nineteen national health service trusts will be operational by 1 April 1994 and over 6,000 general practitioners are now fundholders. Overall these changes have produced dramatic changes in patient activity which is now growing at 5 per cent. per annum. Average waiting times have been reduced from nine months to five. The recent changes announced as part of the functions and manpower review will build on the success of the reforms by streamlining the central management of the NHS to create a simplified, sharper structure.
  207

  Hospital Day Cases
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proportion of hospital day cases has changed since 1991–92; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991–92 day cases represented 20 per cent. of the total number of finished consultant episodes. The corresponding figure for 1992–93 is 23 per cent.

  Immunisation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children are now immunised against childhood diseases; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  At November 1993, according to figures provided by the public health laboratory service's "Cover of Vaccination Evaluated Rapidly" programme:

  93 per cent. of children had received diphtheria, tetanus and polio immunisations;

  91 per cent. had received pertussis—whooping cough—and,

  90 per cent. had received 1-lib immunisation all at age 12 months, while

  92 per cent. had received measles, mumps and rubella at age 24 months.

  We are now well within reach of our target of 95 per cent. immunisation uptake by 1995. Doctors and nurses in general practice and in the community health service are to be congratulated on their achievements.

  Tobacco
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals she has to discourage young people from using tobacco.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 7 February 1994 the Government launched "Smoke-Free for Health", an action plan to achieve "The Health of the Nation" targets on smoking. The action plan sets out the full range of measures being taken to reduce smoking, including smoking by young people.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Birmingham Midland Eye Hospital
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proposed replacement for the Birmingham Midland eye hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities in Birmingham and Solihull have chosen Dudley Road general hospital to provide inpatient and day case ophthalmology services for Greater Birmingham. In support of these services, West Midlands health authority has approved a £7 million development for the hospital. The new development will replace the service currently provided at the Birmingham Midland eye hospital and is expected to open in spring 1996.

  Doctors (Fraud)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to give family health service authorities the power to suspend doctors where there are strong suspicions of fraud.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are considering the need for legislation to provide, in extreme cases, for a power of suspension of general practitioners from provision of national health service services.
  208
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from family health services authorities seeking additional powers to enable them to prevent fraud by general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist within the national health service to deal with general practitioners who are suspected of fraud; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 18 February, at column 1046.

  Infertility Treatment
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department has taken to ensure adequate central monitoring of the level of infertility treatment provision in England.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what inquiries she has made into the level of awareness among general practitioners as to the availability of infertility provision in their area;

  (2) if she will list the centres throughout the United Kingdom which provide treatment for infertility, together with the type of treatment provided, the number of centers which provide infertility treatment for men and the number of centres which provide infertility treatment on the national health service;

  (3) if she will list the district health authorities which provide infertility treatment under the national health service, together with the treatment centre with which they are contracted for such treatment;

  (4) what statistics are collected on the level of provision of infertility treatment; and what plans she has to increase the amount of data collected.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on centres which provide regulated treatment services under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is collected by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. This covers both private and national health service provision. Details of centres licensed by the HFEA are included in their annual reports, copies of which have been placed in the Library. In addition, limited information on in-patient and day case episodes in NHS hospitals is available centrally from the hospital episodes statistics, copies of which are available in the Library. District health authorities and general practitioner fundholders are responsible for identifying the health needs of their local population and for commissioning the appropriate services.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the reasons for the decision to exclude provision of infertility treatments from the coverage of the local GP fundholding contracts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Infertility treatments on an outpatient basis are already included within the scope of the fundholding scheme. High cost in-patient procedures are not included, as fundholding covers only treatments up to £5,000.
  209
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by her Department to district health authorities with regard to the provision of infertility treatments.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 14 January, at column 315.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been commissioned into the different(a) prescribing and (b) referring practices of female as opposed to male GPs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is not aware of any specific studies on this issue.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has on the changes in the workload of general medical practitioners since the introduction of the new general practitioner contract in 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A year-long survey of general practitioners' workload began in November 1992, carried out jointly by the Health Departments and the British Medical Association. A report of the final results will be presented to the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration later in the year. An interim report, based on the first seven months' results, was made to the DDRB in October 1993, to inform its 23rd report—Cm 2460,

  Mentally Ill People
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for health whether arrangements have now been made for a national conference to establish an agreed approach to the training of key workers for mentally ill people accepted by the specialist psychiatric services.

  Mr. Bowis
  The conference will be held on 3 March.

  Regional Health Authority Headquarters
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the tenure of the North West regional health authority headquarters premises, Gateway house, Piccadilly, Manchester;

  (2) what is the tenure of the Merseyside regional health authority headquarters premises, Hamilton house, Pall Mall, Liverpool.

  Mr. Sackville
  Gateway house is the freehold property of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Hamilton house is held on lease until February 2010.

  Lewisham and Southwark FHSA
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amount, recipient and date of all the grants made by Lewisham and Southwark family health services authority since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham family health services authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Jeremy Fraser, the chairman, for details.
  210

  Homelessness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), of 8 December,Official Report, columns 249–50, whether homeless mentally ill people in London not moved into potentially permanent accommodation by community psychiatric teams are (a) sleeping rough or (b) what accommodation they are living in; and if she will specify the accommodation.

  Mr. Bowis
  The table, based on active clients of the community psychiatric teams established under the homeless mentally ill initiative, indicates the proportion of that group who are sleeping rough and in a variety of types of temporary accommodation. It also specifies the types of accommodation.

  Percentage of unresettled clients (sample = 369)

  Percentage

  (a) Sleeping rough

  16

  (b) Temporary accommodation

  84

  Total

  100

  Type of accommodation

  Direct access hostel

  33

  HMI specialist hostel

  15

  Other hostel—providing care

  2

  Other hostel—not providing care

  9

  Hospital

  8

  Staying with friends/family or Squatting

  3

  Adult fostering

  less than 1

  Bed and breakfast

  8

  Prison

  1

  Not known

  4

  Total per cent.

  84

  Notes:

  1. This information is based on data about active clients with whom the five community psychiatric teams set up under the homeless mentally ill initiative were working at a particular date.

  2. The category "direct access hostel" includes the Department of the Environment's cold weather shelters.

  Children
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her Department is doing to ensure that local authorities have the time and the resources to publicise their services to children in need and fulfil their obligations to compile a register of children with disabilities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Time is, alas, not in my gift. The level of resources needed to implement the Children Act 1989 was taken into account in the local government settlements for 1991–92 and 1992–93, the first full year of the Act. In 1992–93 standard spending for children's services was 15 per cent. above the level for 1990–91 in real terms. It is, however, for local authorities to decide on the allocation of resources of the various services for which they are responsible.

  Epilepsy
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether epilepsy is regarded by the NHS as a chronic ailment.
  211
  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service does not categorise any illness or condition as being a chronic ailment. This is because of the degree of variation in individual cases.

  Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commissioned or undertaken into diagnosis and treatment of Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy.

  Mr. Bowis
  None directly, but I would refer the hon. Member to the research undertaken at the St. James's hospital, university of Leeds, by Professor Roy Meadow.

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave him on 18 February, at column 1010.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the dates and amounts of each increase that has been made in prescription charges since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is in the table.

  Prescription charge increases from 16 July 1979 to 1 April 1994

  Date

  Prescription charge (£)

  Increase (£)

  16 July 1979

  0·45

  0·25

  1 April 1980

  0·70

  0·25

  1 December 1980

  1·00

  0·30

  1 April 1982

  1·30

  0·30

  1 April 1983

  1·40

  0·10

  1 April 1984

  1·60

  0·20

  1 April 1985

  2·00

  0·40

  1 April 1986

  2·20

  0·20

  1 April 1987

  2·40

  0·20

  1 April 1988

  2·60

  0·20

  1 April 1989

  2·80

  0·20

  I April 1990

  3·05

  0·25

  1 April 1991

  3·40

  0·35

  I April 1992

  3·75

  0·35

  1 April 1993

  4·25

  0·50

  1 April 1994

  4·75

  0·50

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount she expects to award in grants to voluntary organisations in 1994–95 under the section 64 general scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We expect to make grants totalling £19,525 million, an increase of £765,000 over the corresponding figure for 1993–94. This increase, despite current financial pressures, underlines the Government's commitment to the 212
  important role of the voluntary sector. It represents a rise of £1.675 million—or well above 9 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1994–95.

  General scheme grants go to voluntary organisations working with a wide range of people and coinciding with involving the policy responsibilities of several Department of Health Ministers. These include children, elderly people, carers, and people from ethnic minorities, as well as those having to cope with mental illness, physical disabilities, learning difficulties, or the effects of HIV/AIDS or of the misuse of alcohol or drugs.

  To provide some stability in funding and to help voluntary organisations to plan ahead, most departmental grants are for three years. So for many, 1994–95 will be the second or third year of their grant. Others will be having their grant renewed for a further term. But there will be new grants, too.

  We are determined to provide room for core and project grants for organisations which have not previously benefited from departmental funding. Among the new grants beginning in April will be £15,000 a year to Changing Faces, a project at Frenchay hospital, Bristol, concerned with remedying facial disfigurement; a core grant of £15,000 a year to invalid children aid network; and a core grant of £25,000 a year to action on elder abuse.

  Young Carers
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to establish the specific needs of young carers.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government take a close and active interest in the needs of children and young people who undertake responsibility at home for the well-being of a relative with a disability or chronic illness. The Department is funding, through the family support initiative, work in this field by Barnado's in Liverpool and, through core funding, is supporting the Carers National Association, which is conducting a young carers project.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is currently being spent by her Department on care in the community of psychiatrically disturbed people; what the figure was 20 years ago; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1991–92 expenditure on mental health services totalled over £2 billion, this includes £179·7 million which local authorities spent on services for the mentally ill and £29·8 million which health authorities spent on projects funded under the care in the community arrangements. No figures are held for 1971–72, but in 1978–79 personal social services expenditure on mental illness was £24·8 million.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current ratio of accident and emergency units to district general hospitals in Greater London; and what the ratio was in 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available centrally is shown in the table. From 1991–92 the accident and emergency services have been recorded by provider units
  213
  which may provide accident and emergency services on more than one site within the unit. Information for earlier years is not therefore comparable.

  InnerLondon

  OuterLondon

  Total

  Number of hospitals providing A and E services

  1988–89

  27

  31

  58

  1989–90

  27

  31

  58

  1990–91

  29

  31

  60

  Number of NHS provider unitsproviding A and E services

  1991–92

  18

  25

  43

  1992–93

  18

  16

  36

  Source: KHO3 return.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a list of the equipment stolen from her Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: The tables show the official equipment that has been stolen from the Department of Health's buildings together with its approximate value. Three buildings are jointly occupied by Department of Social Security staff but where the Department of Health, the major occupier, has building management responsibility, the tables include equipment from those buildings belonging to both Departments. One incident of theft in 1993 accounted for a large percentage of the total loss for that year. Measures intended to combat these thefts have been taken, including the branding of equipment to show ownership.

  Description of items

  Approximate value £

  Period 1 January to 31 December 1991

  2 battery chargers

  120

  Computer software

  100

  2 Computers (no software)

  2,000

  3 Computers and software

  5,360

  Thermo Anemometer

  100

  Mobile Telephone

  220

  Extension lead and adaptor

  170

  Camera and accessories

  2,200

  5 Answerphones

  200

  Dictaphone

  230

  2 Paperweights

  5

  10,705

  Period 1 January to 31 December 1992

  2 Computer file servers

  1,700

  9 Computers and software

  24,010

  25,710

  Period 1 January to 31 December 1993

  45 Computers and software

  80,120

  5 Printers

  6,250

  Disks

  6,410

  3 Keyboards

  300

  Software

  650

  4 Mobile Telephones

  350

  Video Recorder

  400

  214

  Description of items

  Approximate value £

  17 Answerphones

  650

  95,130

  Advertising
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of publications from her Department and the expenditure on advertising in 1993 excluding the cost of routine correspondence.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated costs for publications and advertising in 1993–94 are:

  Publications

  £7·5 million

  Advertising

  £4·7 million

  National Care Deficit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the national care deficit.

  Mr. Bowls
  The question presupposes that it is possible to quantify the total health and social care needs of the population in an objective way. I do not believe that this can be done in a way which would be meaningful.

  British Health Care Association
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of donations were received by the NHS from the British Health Care Association in 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the British Health Care Association.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the current health risk to humans from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 6 February at column 866.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure was committed by her Department to research into the health implications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans in 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department and the Scottish Office fund research carried out at the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit at Edinburgh. This includes examination of occupational and dietary exposure of cases of CJD for possible links with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The unit will receive a total of £161,000 from the Department of Health in the current financial year.

  The Department is also funding a series of studies at the Institute for Animal Health, Edinburgh into the time-temperature combinations required to inactivate scrapie agencies. The studies began on 1 January 1994 with funding of £64,000 in the current financial year.

  Research into the human health implications of BSE is also being undertaken by the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  215

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were in(a) the largest residential care home and (b) the largest nursing home in each year since 1983 in (i) the voluntary sector and (ii) the private sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  The largest nursing home is a dually registered home with 385 beds at March 1993, 270 of which were dedicated to nursing care. Figures for nursing care beds are not available for previous years.

  The information for residential care homes has only been available centrally from 1987 to 1992 and is as shown in the table. These figures will include some beds dedicated to nursing care.

  Number of beds available in largest private and voluntary residential care homes

  As at 31 March

  Voluntary

  Private

  1987

  415

  114

  1988

  400

  114

  1989

  432

  114

  1990

  432

  144

  1991

  432

  144

  1992

  394

  105

  Source: RACS returns.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has received from the chief executive of the West Midlands regional health authority on the employment of Mr. Manders, an NHS employee by a health care-purchasing consortium; if she will publish the information; what action she intends to take; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for West Midlands regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Baker, the chairman, for details.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued on the commercial activity of chairmen of family health services authorities; and if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Athelston Sealey.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no limitation on the freedom of chairmen of family health services authorities to pursue private interests provided that they observe scrupulously the regulations governing the disclosure of any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any matter under consideration by their authorities. They may not take part in the consideration or discussion of that matter or vote on any question related to it.

  Codes of conduct and accountability will be issued to national health service boards with effect from 1 April 1994, reaffirming these regulations. It is proposed that relevant interests should be declared and recorded in board minutes, that directorships and other significant interests held by NHS board members should be declared on appointment, kept up to date and set out in the annual report, and that all declared interests should be drawn to the attention of auditors.
  216

  Photorefractive Keratectomy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 670, in what circumstances myopia may be treated by excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy at the expense of the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Treatment of myopia by laser is available on the national health service only as part of a clinical trial.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 670, regarding excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy, for each hospital during the period of the clinical trials, how many (a) NHS patients and (b) private patients have undergone one operation; how many (i) NHS patients and (ii) private patients have undergone both operations; how many (1) NHS patients and (2) private patients have completed their course of treatment; and how many (x) NHS patients and (y) private patients will not have completed their course of treatment by the end date of the clinical trials;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 15 February, Official Report, column 670, regarding excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy, what is the start and end date of the clinical trials at (a) St. Thomas's and (b) Moorfields eye hospitals;

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 15 February, Official Report, column 670, what is the current size of the NHS waiting list for excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy; and what is the average monthly rate of operations for (a) NHS patients and (b) private patients in (i) St. Thomas's hospital and (ii) Moorfields eye hospital;

  (4) pursuant to her answer of 15 February, Official Report, column 670, what is the cost per operation of excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy; and what is the total cost of treating a patient under this programme at (a) St. Thomas's hospital and (b) Moorfields eye hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The hon. Member may wish to contact Lord Hayhoe, chairman of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust, and Mr. Hugh Peppiatt, chairman of the Moorfields eye hospital special health authority, for details.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 670, regarding excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy, if this procedure is undergoing clinical trials in any other national health service hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As far as we are aware, no.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 670, regarding excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy, to what use the equipment will be put at the end of the clinical trials.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  One excimer laser is leased from the manufacturers and will revert to them. The other, purchased by a charitable fund for use in research at St. Thomas's, will continue to be used for that research.
  217

  Employees (Screening)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many times the NHS has bid for a screening programme of Government employees; and what was the value of each contract and who won the contract in each case;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the outcome of the bid for the NHS for a contract for health checks for social security staff.

  Mr. Sackville
  Contracts for health checks on Government employees are the responsibility of the relevant employing organisation.

  Hospitals (Patients Charter)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which hospitals within the London initiative zone are to be fined for failure to meet patients charter standards; and how much each fine will be;

  (2) which hospitals in each of the regional health areas are to be fined for not meeting patients charter standards; and how much each fine will be.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no central policy which imposes financial sanctions on hospitals failing to meet patients charter standards. District health authorities are, however, at liberty to negotiate sanctions through the contracting process.

  Allocations through the national health service management executive's waiting times fund, for the last few years, have been linked to regions' performance on waiting times objectives. Some regions pass on any fines to district health authorities and hospitals. The hon. Member may care to contact the regions directly for more detailed information.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for each of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by her Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.
  218
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The meetings of regional health authorities, district health authorities and family health services authorities are governed by the Public Bodies (Admissions to meetings) Act 1960. This requires any full meeting of the authority, at which specific action is required, to be open to the public. The public may be excluded from the whole or part of a meeting when confidential business is to be discussed. The 1960 Act also requires authorities to supply the press, on request, with a copy of the agenda for each full meeting. These authorities are not required to publish annual reports and accounts, but many do so, and their audited accounts are publicly available on request.

  National health service trusts, and their committees or sub-committees, are not subject to the 1960 Act. Trusts are required to have one public meeting per year, in accordance with the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. They are required to publish annual reports, business plans and accounts.

  Other non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Department of Health are not required to hold meetings in public, or to allow the public to inspect minutes of those meetings.

  Executive bodies are not required to produce reports but all do so either annually or biennially. Annual accounts are usually published either as part of the annual report, or as a separate document.

  Many advisory bodies produce some form of annual report, although they are not required to do so. Most do not produce accounts as they do not have any executive function, and therefore no budget.

  "Public Bodies 1993" gives full details of non-departmental bodies publishing annual reports.

  Of the tribunals sponsored by the Department, the mental health review tribunal rules state that hearings must be in private, unless the patient requests a public hearing. The decision of the tribunal is confidential, and is made available only to the patient and other parties directly concerned with the patient; the registered homes tribunals are held in private, but the decision of each hearing is published; the NHS tribunals are held in private, and minutes of meetings, annual accounts and reports are not available to the public.

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

Civil Actions: Damages
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the increasing amounts of damages awarded to litigants in civil actions, and in particular those awarded against the Ministry of Defence.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, because the Government were aware of anomalies in this area of the law, in 1991 I invited the Law Commission to examine the principles and effectiveness of the remedy of damages. This will help a more rational basis to be applied and understood by all those affected by civil litigation. The Law Commission has already issued two consultation papers.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. In view of the outrageous awards in the United States, awards towards which this country is starting to move, does he agree that the Government should take action to try to keep awards relative to actual loss and degrees of recklessness rather than to the imagination and greed of plaintiffs and their lawyers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have suggested to your Lordships that it is right that awards should be in accordance with principles. The purpose of the remit to the Law Commission is that it should help us to restate those principles in a way that will be readily comprehensible and, I hope, will also avoid any kind of detriment of the type to which my noble friend referred that might possibly travel eastwards from the United States.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the conventional award, as it is called — the award purely for pain and suffering and loss of amenities— is in fact arguably too low, a point that is made in the Judicial Studies Board's guidelines on the assessment of general damages? The guidelines draw attention to what perhaps is not known— that the top award at the moment for injuries of the utmost gravity is between £ ll0,000 and £ 115,000. The award is starkly raised when there is a combination of injuries of the greatest gravity; blindness or deafness, brain injury and paralysis. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the factors contributing to the big figures to which attention is drawn are loss of income, loss Of pension, medical treatment and often the large expenses involved in making the establishment in which the injured person lives capable of being used properly by him?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, undoubtedly, especially in large awards, by far the major part of the award reflects pecuniary loss of the types to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner refers. The precise principles on which the conventional award should be based constitutes a rather difficult question. I hope that the Law Commission's examination of the whole area will encompass that aspect. I agree with my noble and learned friend that there is an argument that the present level is on the small side when one compares awards with some in other fields.

Mr. Christopher Campbell: BR Post
2.40 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they appointed Mr. Christopher Campbell as vice-chairman of the British Rail board.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, Mr. Campbell has been appointed as vice-chairman of the British Rail board with the main responsibility of overseeing the disposal to the private sector of all BR's non-passenger businesses.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, accepting the Government's word for what it is, is it still the Government's intention to help to retain the integrity of our national railway system; and, if so, could that not have been included in the criteria for appointing the vice-chairman of British Rail, bearing in mind the rumours that are abounding in the press?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspect the rumours abounding in the press which the noble Lord mentioned relate to a report in the Guardian this morning about a document which I suppose was found in the usual brown envelope which seems to turn up here and there. I must disappoint the brown envelope purveyors, and I hope please the noble Lord, by saying that the document in question will be deposited in the Library later this afternoon. Then the noble Lord will be able to see that our only intention is to return as much of BR to the private sector as we possibly can in the certain knowledge that that— and only that— will improve the service to the customer.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not this the appointment of an extremely able man, admirably suited to the difficult job which he has been given? Will my noble friend indicate Her Majesty's Government's complete confidence in him, and their rejection of the implied criticism in this Question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend gives me the opportunity to do just that. I am always slightly surprised when I hear criticism when first-class people are appointed to jobs such as this. I often wonder whether people who supposedly have the

511
— —
railways' interests at heart would prefer second-class people. Mr. Campbell is first-class; he has a first-class background, and he knows exactly what he is about.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply the Minister indicated that one of the remits of Mr. Campbell is to return parts of British Rail to the private sector. Where did they come from in the first place?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Answer I gave was that his specific task would be to oversee the disposal of the non-passenger business of British Rail to the private sector. The objectives of the Act which was passed recently are to do just that; namely, to return as much as possible of BR to the private sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question. He specifically repeated that parts of British Rail would be returned to the private sector. What if parts of it were never in the private sector?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that we are beginning to split hairs. If the noble Lord would prefer me to say that the object is to place as much as possible of British Rail in the private sector, then I shall say that. But as some of it originally came from the private sector, if not most of it, then I believe "return" is an appropriate word.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the description "first-class" is subjective to a large extent? The Minister placed great emphasis on that. Does the Minister recall that noble Lords were told on a number of occasions that the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency was first-class; that the chairmen of some of the regional health authorities were first-class? And we know what happened to them!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, ' the noble Lord should not move from particular to general cases. Mr. Campbell has an excellent background. He has been involved in a number of privatisations over the past eight or nine years, and before that he had a distinguished career with Debenhams. I hesitate to add this because the last time I mentioned this occupation, your Lordships did not think that by definition it made him first-class; namely, that he is a chartered accountant.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that conferring an accolade of that kind by this Government must cause Mr. Campbell a great deal of anxiety? Was it not the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who was similarly described by the then Prime Minister one day before he departed office? Does the Minister agree that this appointment is wholly in keeping with the thesis which was set out in an advertisement by this Government in the Sunday Times for a railway regulator, where his qualifications were described as:
"Knowledge of railways or public transport an advantage but not essential"?
512
Is it right that Mr. Campbell has in fact no knowledge of railways other than when he was managing director of Hardy Amies and they were designing uniforms for British Rail employees? Is it not also a fact that, as usual these days— or is so frequently the case— Mr. Campbell is a card-carrying member of the Tory Party?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot comment on the latter part of the noble Lord's question because I simply do not know if he carries a card for any party or no party. I say to the noble Lord that if one made appointments only on the basis of one's experience of the various subjects one is to be made responsible for, I certainly would not be responsible for aviation and shipping, and I doubt very much whether the noble Lord would have been made a Commissioner of the European Commission.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that— thank God! — he does not actually run any of those himself? Bearing in mind his confidence in Mr. Campbell and privatisation, will he guarantee that when Mr. Campbell has finished, we shall have a cheaper, more punctual and a much more comfortable railway service as a result of his activities? Will the Minister guarantee that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am certain that Mr. Campbell will play an important part in doing just that. He will be part of the team which will ensure that the railways we have in the future will see the same kind of improvements that aviation has had since the introduction of competition and the privatisation of British Airways.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that I implied no criticism of Mr. Campbell, although other noble Lords seem to have taken the opportunity to criticise him? As usual, the noble Lord who suggested that I was criticising has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. If the Government are still intent on preserving the integrity of the national system of railways which we have always boasted about, whether under private or public ownership, why are they intent on divorcing a local railway system, which has a catchment area of almost 2 million customers, from an immediate connection with the Channel Tunnel?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has moved away a little from the specific Question as regards the appointment of Mr. Campbell. However, the existence of Railtrack ensures a degree of integrity in the system, if the noble Lord actually means physical integrity. The adjacent railway franchises, while they may not be under the same franchisee, will have a close interest in co-operating to make sure that passengers can move from one area into another in the most effective and comfortable way.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister ask Mr. Campbell to try to establish a link between the Channel Tunnel and Liverpool?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure that Mr. Campbell would have taken on the job if

513
he had thought that he would be responsible for Liverpool. Mr. Campbell's responsibilities are largely for the non-passenger portion of the railways. The noble Lord's question is a little wide of the original Question.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister still further on the question of the Channel Tunnel link. The Question that I tabled originally is not the same as that on the Order Paper. It was to ask the Government on what criteria they appointed Mr. Campbell. I am now asking the Minister on that criteria whether he can give a reason why a catchment area of 2 million people is being divorced from the Channel Tunnel link. If the Minister cannot answer me, I shall ask Mr. MacGregor later today.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the noble Lord tables a specific Question on that issue, I shall certainly answer it.

NHS: Long-term Care
2.50 p.m.
Lord Chapple Lord Chapple asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will investigate the extent of the discharge by NHS trust hospitals of patients who might be regarded as too old or too ill to be discharged
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, it is for local authorities to assess the needs of people leaving hospital. Together with health authorities, they should agree their respective responsibilities for long-term care.
Lord Chapple: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. My concern arises from personal experiences and those of other people which have been communicated to me that old people in hospital are often harassed (to the point where great anxiety is caused to their families and friends) to leave hospital and seek care in residential homes although it is well known that they are in need of medical care which is not provided in those homes.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if old people are harassed, that is unacceptable. Our policy is quite clear: if people need professional healthcare— and that is a judgment made by a clinician— they should get that care within the National Health Service.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, but is it not the case that the care provided depends on geographical location? Some members of the public are far more fortunate and have a far better chance of being allowed a long stay in hospital when that is necessary than people who live in other parts of the country where, per capita, the availability of such beds is much lower. If that is the case, will the Minister take this point on board and see what can be done to redress the imbalance?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we leave the question of to where people are discharged to local decision-making. That decision has to be made in
514
discussion not only with the patient concerned, but also with their carers and families. Many people prefer to be cared for at home, given enough support. Indeed, our results show that they actually recover more quickly at home.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge that this is a difficult problem for the department, but could the Minister examine the possibility of seeking closer help from local authorities and certain very well known voluntary organisations which, if they were approached, would be only too happy to help?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. The whole purpose of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, the provisions of which came into force in entirety in April of this year, is to ensure that local authorities, health authorities and voluntary organisations work closely together. Our initial monitoring shows that that is beginning to happen in a much more real way than previously.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the report of the ombudsman on the Leeds healthcare trust case (when the healthcare trust was criticised for precisely the kind of action to which my noble friends have referred), which suggested the need for a national policy? Is not this another area in which the dispersion of authority from the National Health Service to local trusts is resulting in the breakdown of the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no, I do not believe that there is a breakdown of the National Health Service. It has never been better, never had more resources and never had more people working in it. The Leeds case took place before the new community care Act came into force. The Leeds health authority has accepted responsibility for what happened. Et has paid an ex gratia payment and is looking after the patient concerned. I believe that far from falling apart, which is what was predicted by those who were full of doom and gloom when the community care Act was introduced, the Act is proving to be far more successful than anybody anticipated.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further on this? Is she saying that the Leeds healthcare trust case was totally isolated? Is it not, in fact, part of a pattern which is growing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Leeds case took place several years ago and, as I have said, long before the community care Act was introduced. Although I cannot give an absolute undertaking that in every single case everything will work perfectly— after all,7.5 million people are admitted to hospital every year— we now have discharge procedures whereby arrangements are made with the families, carers and patients concerned. No patients should be discharged until those procedures are fully implemented and there is agreement between all the parties concerned.
Lord Chapple: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the fact that the issue raised in the Question has arisen since last April when the community care Act

515
came into force? It seems to me that what is lacking is a more widespread knowledge of what that Act actually amounts to. When elderly people are in hospital, something should be done to acquaint their families with their rights, which the Minister has outlined.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I absolutely agree with that. As in other cases, I am always very willing to take up a particular case to ensure that things have gone right and, if they have not gone right, we should learn from that. The chief executive of the NHS Management Executive wrote to all hospitals, trusts, health authorities and social services departments about hospital admissions and discharges saying that they should keep their procedures constantly under review.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am pleased that the Minister agrees that the National Health Service has a continuing responsibility to look after the numerous cases of long-term chronic illness which need low-tech but definite healthcare rather than care by untrained people. Does the Minister agree that such care should preferably be provided in the community and be run, if possible, by general practitioners and nurses locally, close to the patients' home? Can she say whether any such units have been commissioned or built in London prior to the closing of hospitals, as suggested in the Tomlinson report?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, there is a need for a variety of provision. Some of the hospital-at-home schemes are proving to be not only extremely effective, but also popular with those whom they look after. We have clear discharge policies and if those policies are not being followed, I would want to know.

Durham Coalfield: Water Pumping Policy
2.57 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action together with British Coal to avert the consequences of switching off the water pumps in coal mines now closed in County Durham.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is an offence under the Water Resources Act 1991 to cause the pollution of a water course. British Coal is in close touch with the National Rivers Authority, which is responsible for enforcing this legislation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Rivers Authority, which he has just mentioned, stated recently that the Durham coalfield would produce a pollution bombshell if British Coal switched off the pumps and that there would be discharges of water within three months and eventually a discharge of 4.5 million gallons a day into the rivers? Does the Minister not agree that the peculiar
516
attitude that is now being adopted by British Coal is closely linked to privatisation and that the Government really ought to be doing much more on this matter, particularly in view of the disappointing Answer that the Minister has just given me?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, first, I am sorry that the noble Lord found my Answer disappointing. I thought that it was rather a clear Answer. Secondly, I can tell the House that this has nothing to do with privatisation. It is the current law and current statutes that deal with the pollution emanating from mines. In respect of the current situation in the Durham coalfield, I understand that British Coal met the NRA on 1st February to discuss the latest position and that British Coal is currently considering what the next step should be. My understanding is that it will seek to reach an agreement with the NRA before making any changes to its pumping programme.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the case of the River Wear halting pumping could result in a low flow? The river will then be unable to cope with the normal effluent, there will be an increase in pollution and a good salmon/trout river in the North will be ruined. In many other cases— not necessarily Durham and the River Wear— pumping having ceased from coal mines, there becomes an overflow of obnoxious, coloured water which flows into rivers, streams and meadows causing great environmental damage. There is a danger that water supplies might be contaminated. The Minister mentioned the Water Resources Act 1991, which requires British Coal not to cause pollution. What are the Department of the Environment and the National Rivers Authority doing about prosecuting the many cases which come to their knowledge?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord's interest in salmon and trout fishing is known throughout the House. He is a great champion of the cause of river anglers and it is right that he should have an interest in this matter. I cannot comment on individual cases. However, I confirm that the subject is of great interest to the Departments of Trade and Industry and the Environment as well as to the National Rivers Authority and British Coal. The Government are committed to reviewing the legal framework for discharges from abandoned mines. The Department of Environment is taking the review forward in tandem with a broader review of contaminated land liabilities.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, who will be responsible for the large number of unworked collieries which are natural wells, as my noble friend described? In South Wales rust coloured water is flowing into the River Taff down into Cardiff. Who will be responsible for the situation once British Coal is no more? Will the private owners pay to pump out the water or will the Government pay? The matter does not need a review; it needs a decision.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the decision has been made. The Coal Bill, which is before another place and

517
will soon come to this House, deals precisely with this aspect. Current abandoned mines will become the responsibility of the new Coal Authority.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, first, will the Minister accept our warmest congratulations if, as I have been told, today is his 34th birthday, and our astonishment that one so young can be so wise? Secondly, given that whenever the build-up of water in closed mine workings takes place gases are forced towards the surface, will the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing about the methane build-up in flooded mines?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's felicitations and his flattery. I hope I can convince him that that wisdom will continue for a long time. British Coal and its successor body, the Coal Authority, will have a specific safety duty, which includes a safety duty concerning methane.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am unclear about the answer which the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. Is he suggesting that the legislation which is about to be introduced will be retrospective? My noble friend's question related to existing problems which show themselves only long after the closure of the pits.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all the current liabilities of British Coal will be passed to the successor body.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my disappointment is based largely on the lack of urgency in the replies that he has given, not only to me but to my noble friends? All the pits in Durham and in the North East are closed and therefore it cannot be long, before a decision must be made. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that County Durham had more than 203 pits in operation? Those workings still exist and in some cases they are linked. Therefore, flooding and pollution are a major issue and I hope that the Minister will take a more urgent view.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not a question of lack of urgency; the matter becomes urgent only if the pumps are to be shut down. There is no evidence to suggest that that is to take place. That, quite properly, is a decision for British Coal to take after consultation with the NRA.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. — (Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 62 [Alteration of magistrates' courts committee areas]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.144:
Page 30, line 23, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) below").
The noble Lord said: I begin with a general statement which applies to this and associated amendments and to several others. I wish to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether the compulsory amalgamation of magistrates' courts committees is really necessary. Is there real evidence that it will bring about increased efficiency and economy? Why not wait for a few years for reports from the inspectorate? The Le Vay Report was always suspect for the reasons that I gave on Second Reading. It is from that that the amendments stem. Is the halving of the number of magistrates' courts committees from about 120 to about 60 worth the inefficiencies that will be caused, certainly to begin with?
Amendment No.144 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.147. That amendment seeks to invite my noble and learned friend to await hard evidence of the need on the lines that I have given. Paragraph (c) of the amendment seeks to ensure that island magistrates' courts committees are fully safeguarded against unnecessary merger.
The amendments standing in the name: of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, provide an alternative safeguard which may commend itself to the Committee. Indeed, it commends itself to me. It is reasonable that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should have two options.
During the past few years my noble and learned friend has had experience of voluntary amalgamations. Will he not trust the magistrates' courts committees to propose further amalgamations if, from experience, they find that these are both feasible and an improvement? The memorandum from the Lord Chancellor's Department to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee indicated a definite lack of trust of the magistrates' courts committees in this respect.
I remind my noble and learned friend that the Local Government Commission studied the problem of the Isle of Wight and its unitary authority. In doing so in great depth, it recommended that the Isle of Wight magistrates' court committee should remain separate. I mention that because Members of the Committee will understand that I have to the fore the well-being of the administration of magistrates in the Isle of Wight. However, in general terms, I believe that my remarks require consideration. It will be more in the understanding of the Committee if my noble and learned friend were to take a step back and ask,"Why rush this just because some time ago a body stated that there ought to be a change?".
In my view, the most important step that my noble and learned friend is taking is to introduce the inspectorate. I shall have more to say about that on the relevant clause. The inspectorate has been in existence for only a very short time. It cannot be said to have gathered the detail of what is needed in order to make sure that the magistrates' courts are run as efficiently

519
and effectively as possible. When it has that information, it should be a really important and useful arm on which my noble and learned friend can lean in order to determine whether the proposed changes are really necessary.
Finally, Amendment No.153 is consequential on Amendment No.146 and is of no more importance than that. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: Amendments Nos.145 to 151 are included in this grouping and in due course I shall seek to move Amendment No.145 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tenby.
Clause 62 as drafted allows the amalgamation of magistrates' courts committees at the instance of the committees which are involved. However, it goes on to state that that may be done also at the direction of the Lord Chancellor. It is to the latter provision that the amendments are directed.
All concerned wish to see effective utilisation of resources which occasionally necessitates a combination of magistrates' courts committees. But a balance must be held between economies of scale and the maintenance of the local nature of the committees. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said as recently as the beginning of this month in a written statement that the Government are committed totally to a local magistrates' courts service. We submit that the balance is for the committee to decide, subject to default powers which are to be found in Amendment No.208 and in the proposed clause to be added after Clause 80.
The magistrates' courts committees are entrusted with selecting the budget and providing strategy. It is our submission that the Lord Chancellor has sufficient controls to ensure that the committees do not act in any profligate way. There are at least three ways in which that control can be exercised. The first, and probably the most vigorous, is the discipline of financial constraints. I did not appreciate until I read about it recently how tough are those constraints. In 1992 cash limited grants were brought into existence and those grants, on which the courts committees depend for their budgets, are based largely upon the average cost per case, the number of cases dealt with per hour, and the efficiencies of fine enforcement and the measure and extent of delay. That prompted Mr. Green, a magistrates' clerk, referred to frequently in an excellent book now in your Lordships' Library called Managing Criminal Justice, to say:
"The product of justice is becoming increasingly disregarded, the budgetary rewards going to the courts with the efficiency of a sausage-making machine".
That should not sound entirely quixotic because on 23rd January there was an article in the Observer, the subject also of a leading article, headed:
"Cash outweighs scales of justice".
The article commented on a course organised by the Lord Chancellor's Department where the emphasis was placed emphatically upon the need to ensure the most efficient through-put of cases which could be organised. So financial constraints are the first point.
Secondly, there is the work of the inspectorate. That will be the subject matter of discussions in the course of our debates on the Bill. Thirdly, Members of the
520
Committee will see in Clause 81 how the Audit Commission comes on to the scene and how it can, when called upon to do so, provide the appropriate advice on financial matters. In addition, Clause 67(3) allows the Lord Chancellor to require any committee to produce a business case identifying the options of remaining independent or combining or sharing resources with another committee and setting out the advantages and disadvantages of each. That approach maintains local responsibility but it enables the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the issue is considered. Now that magistrates' courts committees are likely to be chosen essentially on their managerial competence, if there is a sound business case for combination it is likely that the committees will adopt it.
Where it is demonstrated that the management is failing properly to discharge its responsibilities, the Lord Chancellor may, under the powers included in the proposed new clause after Clause 80, direct amalgamation if that is necessary to prevent a future failure by the local management.
It is our submission that by providing the Lord Chancellor with power to direct a combination against the wishes of the MCCs involved, and where there is no indication of an inadequate use of resources, responsibility is removed from the committee, where it should be, and vested in Whitehall where it should be only as a matter of the very last resort. Therefore, the power is unnecessary. I wish to move my amendment in due course; at this stage I merely wish to outline its substance.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: I support the amendments spoken to by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. The purpose of Clause 62 is to enable the Lord Chancellor to combine magistrates' courts committee areas, either as the result of approaches made to him or— and this is the main point of contention— of his own volition. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, the main purpose is to reduce the present 105 magistrates' courts committees to a total of between 50 and 60. However, I believe that it is only individual magistrates' courts committees which will possess the necessary local knowledge to be able to evaluate whether such a step is desirable. In some instances, amalgamation may be unnecessary. A sharing of resources for training or the use of technology systems may prove an effective option.
If the proposal is harnessed to the bandwagon of cost-effectiveness and economies in the service, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor already has two powerful weapons at his disposal— cash limitation on budgets, and the assessments of the new inspectorate, whose establishment, I believe, we all welcome. In any event, I do not believe that any amalgamation, as my noble and learned friend said, should be contemplated before a costed business plan has been shown to stand up to critical scrutiny.
The whole point about the magistracy is that it meets the needs of local communities or it is nothing— something which has been pretty well true since 1361. MCC areas are disparate in size, in geographical and in

521
ethnic profile and indeed in criminal trends as well, and they cannot and should not be controlled centrally within a Whitehall straitjacket by those ignorant of, or unable to accept, regional diversity. What intrigues me about this whittling away of the independence of MCCs and magistrates courts is that it is being done, we are told, in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness. Well, I do not think that the magisterial service comes out too badly on either account. I do not have the latest figures at my disposal, but I know that in the year 1988–1989 the overall cost of the criminal justice system was £ 5.7 billion, of which the magisterial service accounted for just £ 236 million. That is £ 236 million for a service which deals with some 90 per cent. of all criminal discosals in this country. Of course, when you add to that the amount collected in fines, I would be very surprised if the service did not, to use the vernacular, wash its face.
Why is it so cheap? Well, of course it is principally because the major participants in it are unpaid. Such an economical way of dispensing justice is the envy of certainly western Europe to the extent that delegations come here to see whether any part of our system can be adapted for their own use. To be fair, successive Lord Chancellors have regularly praised the service and those who work in it, and none more sincerely and gracefully than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today. We do not seek this praise but we are nevertheless grateful for it. We would, however, be even more grateful if it was tacitly accepted by Whitehall that in some instances our local knowledge and experience should take precedence over centrally conceived theories and strategies.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I intervene briefly to say that the outer London magistrates' courts have taken strong objection to the suggestions in the Government's paper that they should be amalgamated into three groups. Happily, however, I think that they have gone a long way to persuade my noble and learned friend that this need not happen. There is no amendment dealing with the outer London magistrates' courts on the Marshalled List for the good reason that the discussions with my noble and learned friend are continuing. Indeed, on Friday cf this week the first meeting of a joint working party is to be held with a view to removing the remaining differences that may exist between the department of my noble and learned friend and the outer London magistrates' courts committees. I hope that by the time we reach the Report stage my noble and learned friend will be able to say something about this. Perhaps it might be helpful at that stage if I were to give him a vehicle in the form of an amendment which might enable him to do that. I understand that that might require amendments to the Bill and that it might be necessary for those amendments to be made to the Bill in another place. For my part I do not mind where they are made so long as they are made. I hope that that agreement will be reached so that the concerns of the outer London magistrates' courts committees can be met.
Lord Renton: Following from what my noble friend Lord Jenkin has just said,1 think it would be very
522
helpful if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor finds himself able to give some indication at this stage as to the possibilities that might arise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Everyone who has ever attended the out-patients department at a hospital will know that the time of the consultant is infinitely valuable and the time of the patient is infinitely worthless. Patients are summoned to make absolutely certain that no consultant is kept waiting for a split second, however long the patients may have to wait. I urge this analogy on the noble and learned Lord when he is looking at the costs of the magistrates' courts service. Of course it is entirely proper that the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should seek the utmost efficiency in the working of the courts service, and that it should seek to eradicate financial extravagance and waste and find ways of cutting costs wherever possible. However, there are other costs which should be taken into account. There are the costs of the magistrates themselves, of the witnesses, of the police and of the defendants in attending courts. Where the courts are genuinely local, they provide— as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has rightly said— a better quality of service because they are local and because they are accessible to the people who have to use them. Those who propose amalgamations with the justification of cutting costs rather than for any other reason ought to bear in mind the costs perhaps not to the public exchequer but to the public in general which would be involved in larger court areas. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will bear that in mind when he responds to these groups of amendments.
There are, of course, two groups of amendments in the same grouping which seek to do the same thing. One group comprises the three amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the other group comprises the larger group of amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. One of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has its charms but it runs the risk of hybridity by protecting the Isle of Wight, of all magistrates' courts, from amalgamation by stating that it will not be amalgamated if it is not connected by road with any other magistrates' courts committee area. Despite that charm, on the whole I believe the group of amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is better thought out and better drafted and has a more comprehensive and defensible default provision in the new clause to be inserted after Clause 80. Of the two I hope it s the latter group which achieves the agreement of the Committee.
What we have to ask ourselves is under what circumstances other than saving costs and the cases of default provided for in the new clause in Amendment No.208 does the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor need to justify proceeding with an amalgamation without the agreement of the magistrates' courts committees themselves. That is the crux of the matter. Almost all the cases in which amalgamation is going to be genuinely justified will surely be put forward by the magistrates' courts committees themselves because they will understand the local conditions. It is the centralising power of giving

523
the power to initiate amalgamations to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which we find difficult to justify. We hope that the noble and learned Lord will, in his response to these amendments, find some way of indicating that he does not want any more than the default powers provided in the new clause.
Lord Wigoder: I normally believe in minding my own business, and my business certainly does not extend to the affairs of Devon and Cornwall; but I know that a conclusion has already been arrived at by the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that their respective magistrates' courts committees should be amalgamated. This has led the liaison judge for Cornwall to write to me to ask me whether I will look at the matter. He is a man of immaculate judgment and impeccable legal upbringing. I can vouch for that because many years ago he was one of my pupils.
I can see that the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has a problem in this kind of instance. National criteria were set out in 1991 for the continued existence of magistrates' courts committees. The position is that Cornwall, together with the Scilly Isles, has a case load which is below that of the criteria. It has a budget which is below that of the criteria and it also has a population which is below that of the criteria. However, it has a geographical area which is considerably in advance of the national criteria.
The proposal put forward by the Lord Chancellor's Department that Cornwall should now be amalgamated with Devon leads to precisely the opposite problem. It means that in future the combined case load will be no less than three times that recommended in the criteria; the combined budget will be three times that recommended; the combined population will be twice that recommended; and the area will also be three times that recommended. One would be creating a sizeable authority much in excess of all the criteria that were established only some two years ago.
An argument has been put forward that the boundaries of the new communities should, if possible, be the same as those of the police authorities. That is not an argument which carries much weight on examination. For example, there is one police authority in East and West Sussex yet there are separate magistrates' courts committees. Conversely, there are two police authorities in Staffordshire and Warwickshire but only one combined magistrates' courts committee. Therefore, that is not an argument which would carry very much weight.
I can also understand that considerations of public expenditure might enter into the problem. I appreciate that issues relating to the administration of justice depend rather more and more on public expenditure considerations than on any other consideration. However, so far I have seen no evidence that public expenditure would be in any way reduced by the proposed amalgamation.
The real issue, therefore, is whether one prefers the small or the large option in. relation to magistrates' courts committees. I would much prefer smaller
524
committees, particularly where there are considerations of local identity and local pride, and particularly in Devon and Cornwall where geographical and transport considerations make the concept of a very large authority far in excess of the criteria totally indefensible.
I apologise to the Committee for taking the argument from the general to the particular in the case of those two authorities, but that indicates the nature of the problem that we face. It indicates the merits of a proposal such as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which would not allow the Lord Chancellor's Department to make proposals of this nature unless there were valid reasons for doing so and unless those reasons had the support of the local community.
In those circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord will find it possible to meet the points raised in the debate this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Perhaps I may add my support to all those who have already spoken on the amendments. I find myself in agreement with all of them.
I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that the magistrates' courts committees must remain local and be known and trusted by the local people. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, we must persuade my noble and learned friend to proceed slowly on this issue. It is very easy to lose the confidence of local people. If they see that there are to be only 50 or 60 magistrates' courts committee throughout the country we shall lose that confidence.
I should also like to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Mottistone and say to my noble and learned friend that the proposals relating to the justices' clerks and the magistrates' courts inspectorate should be put in place if that is what is needed, but nothing should be done at all in respect of the magistrates' courts committees for at least two years, until they have had the opportunity to report back to my noble and learned friend.
Baroness Nicol: I should like briefly to add a few words in support of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, in respect of keeping decisions local.
I served for a number of years on a magistrates' courts committee. During that time we endured a number of amalgamations of smaller benches. The agony that we had to go through in order to achieve agreement, even on that scale, was alarming. We achieved it in the end, but that we achieved it without bloodshed was due largely to the fact that we knew the local situation and were able to gain the confidence of the small benches that were being amalgamated and were able to meet all their fears.
I should like to reinforce the point made by two other speakers in relation to the additional costs associated with larger benches. As part of the exercise which we undertook we took into account the extra costs associated with travel by solicitors and witnesses and the cost of prisoners being brought from further away than had perhaps previously been the case. At the end of

525
the exercise the total sum involved was very large indeed. I hope that when the calculation is done that aspect will be taken into account.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I support what others have said. When we consider amalgamations we have to consider the paying authorities, namely the local authorities which help with the costs. The Government are rn the throes of local government reorganisation. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sets this process of amalgamation in motion before that reorganisation is complete, we shall, if we are not careful, have a constant change in magistrates' courts committees. A committee which is within one local authority's boundaries may in the distant future face changes if the Government take forward boundary commission recommendations.
It is incumbent upon us to remember that the local authorities have to make a contribution. When he replies perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say how that will arise. I am thinking in particular of Birmingham, where I served for a long time. In that region a great many people will have to be moved into other areas. It appears that in Birmingham the cost basis will be higher than receiving authorities are already paying. Therefore it is important that where some magistrates move cut of a local authority area which has too many magistrates in order to build up smaller benches elsewhere the amount which the local authority is charged is given serious consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate so far. There are one or two preliminary points that I would like to make before I deal with the subject matter of the amendments.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, does not appear to be present at the moment because he made some remarks at Second Reading which I wish to deal with. There is no policy on the part of the Lord Chancellor to get rid of the lay magistracy. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for whose interest in these matters I have the greatest respect, suggested that some people in the Lord Chancellor's Department held that view. I do not know of any myself who had that point of view. I took the opportunity of asking the Permanent Secretary; he not only does not hold that point of view but could mention no one who did.
My second point arises out of something that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner mentioned. The ministerial responsibility for advising Her Majesty on the appointment of magistrates has been with the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for a long time. I am glad to say that since I have been in office, and before, the total number of active justices has increased each year. It is sometimes suggested that so many gloomy matters affect the magistracy that that would not be so. There is no doubt that many difficulties affect the obtaining of new magistrates. Notwithstanding those difficulties, I am extremely grateful that this year we had a net gain of 600 over the country as a whole. The total number of magistrates is now over 30,000 for the first time.
526
In so far as there has been responsibility to Parliament for the administration of the magistrates' courts, it was previously the responsibility of the Home Secretary. For that reason, I believe that the Lord Chancellor and his department had a good relationship with the magistrates. The Home Secretary. having to deal with the administration aspect, found the position a little more difficult. I was well aware of that factor when, in response to the Le Vay proposals, all the representative bodies in the magistrates' courts area suggested that the responsibility, so far as it was with the Home Secretary, should be moved to the Lord Chancellor. I appreciated that the move might not be altogether without pain, if I may refer to the expression of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Bloodshed I shall come to. I knew that there might be more difficulties. However, one of my guiding principles has been to seek to devise arrangements under which conflict between the Lord Chancellor's Department and magistrates and magistrates' courts is reduced to the absolute minimum, not only now but in the future. I am looking particularly to the future.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said, one of the responsibilities that I now have is to allocate the national grant to the magistrates' courts. The total sum available from the taxpayer has to be negotiated, obviously, at national level. The House of Commons is the authority for the supply of the magistrates' courts as well as all other public agencies in so far as the resources come from the taxpayer. That responsibility has passed to me. Before the responsibility passed, the Home Secretary had sought to find a basis for distributing that sum according to a formula to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred in part. The elements of that formula— the aim was that they should be objective— applied to the individual courts' committees. In the past the money had been allocated on the previous year's basis. That was not a particularly fair basis. The formula sought to put the allocation on a more rational, principled and defensible basis. As my noble and learned friend said, people are apt to speak of the formula as though the arrangements of the magistrates' courts were a sausage-making machine. I, of course, and all Members of the Committee are immediately aware that the magistrates' courts service is not of that character; it is quite different. What is not so obvious is how the formula should be changed to take account of that fact.
It is important to have a satisfactory method for fair distribution of the central money between the various magistrates' courts committees. I have said that instead of the formula continuing to take over, there will be a pause. With the service I am examining the various options for improvement of the formula before it proceeds to take over further. However, one of the problems that I face is that at present there are 105 units — magistrates' courts committees. The formula is designed to deal with the allocation of resources between them. The more disparate the units, the more difficult it is to obtain a fair allocation of resources between them. Certainly, an important principle for me is that we should do what we can to have as

527
homogeneous a magistrates' courts committee and area as we can. I agree that that is not possible in absolute terms. We have to make the best of what we can.
However, since the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the area, let me cite Devon and Cornwall. I have had some specific conference about that area in recent times. Is it better that the decision to allocate money as between Devon and Cornwall should be made in Whitehall, or wherever the Lord Chancellor is— it is not quite in Whitehall— or in Devon and Cornwall? It is said that the Bill is a centralising measure. In my submission to the Committee, it is quite the opposite. It attempts to place the allocation of resources as between local committees at as local a level as possible. I believe that amalgamation is one way of doing that. There may be other ways. That is what I am exploring with the magistrates' courts committees outside London. Is it better that the allocation as between Devon and Cornwall should be made in Devon and Cornwall or in London? One of the points made to me relates to the size of Devon and Cornwall and the journey one has to make if one is in Truro and wishes to reach Exeter. I am not entirely ignorant on that. I have sometimes waited for quite long times in the summer endeavouring to pursue that route for purposes of refreshment. It is quite a journey. But to come to London to discuss those matters is an even greater journey, and Cornwall magistrates' courts committees have found it necessary to make that journey.
National as well as local considerations come into the question of amalgamations. There are powers for magistrates' courts committees to amalgamate, but on the committees' own initiative. It will not surprise the Committee to know that no such amalgamations have taken place. However, I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said about her experience of the magistrates' courts committees. They have power to amalgamate local benches without the approval of local benches. The noble Baroness explained that in the interests of local justice she has had experience of amalgamating local benches. There was a lot of difficulty but, as she put it, bloodshed was avoided by understanding the local conditions.
I have taken care to make it absolutely plain on the face of the Bill that the Lord Chancellor will not order an amalgamation without fully consulting all interests, including the interests of the paying authorities. I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. Those authorities must be consulted: every interested authority is to be consulted. I entirely agree with what she said about the need to have regard to local authority boundaries and the boundaries of other agencies in the criminal justice system in that connection.
Thus I have every confidence in local magistrates' courts committees, as they will be constituted under the Bill. But I believe that there are anxieties such as those of the magistrates' courts committee of which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was a member, about suggested amalgamations at local level which may not at first sight be attractive to individual units. That is obviously what happened.
528
On Friday I was in Lincolnshire, speaking to local magistrates— this may accord with the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol— and a very experienced magistrate said to me that many people involved in an amalgamation before it happened were anxious that it should not happen. But after the amalgamation, they saw its benefit. I entirely accept that that depends on the wisdom with which the amalgamation is conducted. I hope and believe— and this must to some extent have been behind the desire on the part of the service to move to the Lord Chancellor's Department— that the Committee would feel that the Lord Chancellor, in considering such matters, would exercise every possible care.
Perhaps I may illustrate one further example. The Lord Chancellor has the power to appoint a stipendiary magistrate in an area. I have never done that without the consent of the local magistrates. I can do so, but I have not exercised that power. The Committee may take it that if the power is granted, I believe that the spirit of the Bill would show that it should be exercised only with great care in the light of a full consultation with local people and with the business considerations to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred.
With great respect to those Members of the Committee who have spoken, I think that it would be a mistake to eliminate the power to initiate from the Lord Chancellor altogether. When I look at the amendments that have been proposed, I believe that they do not do that. The first level of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, puts a veto in the hands of one of the committee. In two committees of 12 members, that would put a veto in the hands of seven members as against 17. The 17 may want something, but with seven against, it would not be possible for the proposal to be passed. I believe that the results and benefits of an amalgamation are not always completely apparent to those who are immersed in the individual units which are under consideration for amalgamation.
The other option that has been mentioned is of default, using the amalgamation power as a remedy for default. There are precedents for that in other areas but none that I know of have actually been used. I suggest to the Committee that to use amalgamation as a remedy for default is about the worst possible atmosphere in which to introduce the amalgamation. The theory must be that at least one of those to be amalgamated is in some kind of default. Surely, for the amalgamation to work, it ought to be seen as a positive advantage to both parties who go into it. In the cases to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred, ultimately the various Benches saw the advantage in the union. It may not appear immediately, but eventually it will.
I therefore strongly suggest to the Committee, first, that it is wise to leave the power in the Bill in principle. I am willing to consider any conditions on the exercise of the power that may be reasonable. I do not believe that it is reasonable to make the powers default powers, for the reason that I have just given. I submit that the power should be left to initiate such amalgamations. Secondly, it would be wrong to give' a veto to any of those in the magistrates' courts committee subject to the amalgamation proposal. The power given by the Bill

529
would operate in public law, therefore any exercise of it by the Lord Chancellor would be subject to judicial review. Therefore if the Lord Chancellor irrationally concluded that, despite all the local weight of evidence and all the business plans against it, there should be an amalgamation, it would be open to the court to set that decision aside. It is not so easy to see any remedy against an unreasonable majority of one of the committees.
I therefore suggest that the proposal to have amalgamations, far from being a proposal to centralise important decision-making, is quite the opposite. It will bring decision-making to a reasonably local level and that is of particular relevance in relation to areas out of London, but it may apply to other places as well. In my view binding arrangements for the allocation of resources short of amalgamation, if they can be devised, are matters which should very much wish to consider as an alternative to amalgamation in cases where such agreements would be appropriate.
I am anxious to get a structure for the service which will last, which will cause as little friction as possible in the handing out of taxpayers' resources and which will be of benefit to the administration of justice in this country. Of course, I entirely accept that the system is extremely economical in total, largely due to the devotion of the lay magistracy and the nature of the support and co-operation between the lay magistracy and the stipendiaries where they exist. I believe that our lay magistrates, who give their services freely and with a good deal of sati; faction in service to the public, are entitled to the best possible form of management. That is why I believe that the general proposals of the Bill are good, but in particular it is right to have such a power in the management structure.
Lord Wigoder: The noble and learned Lord quite rightly points out that before making an order for amalgamation under Clause 62, he will be obliged by subsection (4) to consult various bodies. The noble and learned Lord obviously has the case of Devon' and Cornwall at his fingertips. It would help the Committee if he were able to tell us, as regards subsection (4) (a) whether he consulted the magistrates. If so, were they for or against amalgamation?
As regards subsection (4) (b), did he consult the magistrates' courts committees? If so, were they for or against amalgamation? As regards subsection (4) (c), did he consult every interested authority and, if so, were they for or against it? As regards any authorities who were in favour, could the noble and learned Lord indicate which interested authorities were in favour of that amalgamation?
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I should have said that the Bill's provisions are not yet in place and therefore I am not in a position to exercise any such power at the moment. However, the question enables me to say what I ought to have said earlier. We have sought, in consultation papers over the past two years since the White Paper was issued which preceded the Bill, in raise practical questions about how the proposals or the policy in the White Paper might be adopted.
530
We looked at the criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred and then came the question: do we give any indication of how those criteria might apply? I had to consider carefully whether it was more dangerous to do so or not to do so. I considered that the right thing for me to do, in the way that I believe the Lord Chancellor ought to conduct these matters, was to indicate in a paper in July the level of consideration that we had been able to give to the matter. The document which we issued, as I made absolutely plain, is purely provisional on the basis of an application of the criteria to the various committees.
If this Bill is passed, then I will start completely afresh so far as amalgamations are concerned. To take Devon and Cornwall, I would wish to consult each of the authorities there before there was any question of an order being made. Anything that has gone before is of no consequence whatsoever in that connection. My general impression at present from those who are involved once they saw the proposal, is that the general feeling in Devon and Cornwall — certainly in Cornwall — is rather against an amalgamation across the various groups that are interested in the magistrates' courts service. I have not taken the matter further than that so far. Therefore I am certainly not saying that that process would ever go ahead. The point I am making is that the consultation must take place before any order is made under these provisions. I would certainly wish to await the provisions becoming statutory before I engaged on the statutory consultations.
4 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: Is the noble and learned Lard saying that the proposal to amalgamate the Devon and Cornwall magistrates' courts committees was made without consultation?
The Lord Chancellor: No proposal has been made to amalgamate Devon and Cornwall except in indicating how far we have got in seeing how the criteria would apply in the various areas. I have spoken with representatives of some of the interests involved, but I have not sought to come to a concluded view, partly because I think it right to have as open a mind on these matters as possible. I made that absolutely plain in the document to which I referred. I simply thought it right to put out our views as they have been reached so far as a result of trying to apply the criteria to the various committees that exist, and to indicate how a number of 50 or 60 might be reached. But I have not sought to reach anything like definite conclusions or to make proposals until the statutory powers to do so exist. At the present moment there is no statutory power for the Lord Chancellor to make a proposal of his own_
Lord Renton: I found the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very helpful. It was candid and open-minded. The most important point that he made was that, broadly speaking, there should be no amalgamation without consultation. He mentioned of course the possibility of his keeping a reserve power where amalgamation is clearly desirable and perhaps necessary. Even then, the process of consultation could still be applied. That is important.

531
However, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had a very important point. Yes, there is scope for amalgamation. There are so many small commissions of the police, but when two very large areas like, for example, Devon and Cornwall, are to be amalgamated, my noble and learned friend should be very cautious indeed.
The other day I was given another example in the outer London area, if it can be so called. It was mentioned to me that an intention was put forward by somebody in the Lord Chancellor's Department that, for example, the commission of police which covers Croydon and all that highly populated part of east Surrey should be amalgamated with the pretty highly populated area around Bromley and Orpington in west Kent. I happen to know those areas well from long ago. I would find that proposal a bit incongruous. Although there is scope for amalgamations, I think that my noble and learned friend would be very wise to bear in mind historical associations, local loyalties and, above all, demographic and geographic factors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have all been guilty in discussing these amendments and this clause of talking as if the clause were about amalgamations. It is not; it is about alterations. In other words, it envisages the possibility, as do the amendments, that alterations could involve splitting up one magistrates' court area into two as well as the opposite. We should bear that in mind in considering one particular strand which I found extraordinary in the Lord Chancellor's argument. He argued that because the Lord Chancellor's Department has the task of allocating funds between the different magistrates' court committee areas, a larger magistrates' court committee would have devolved upon it the power to allocate funds within its own area, and that was a decentralising rather than a centralising move. If I may say so, that is a quite extraordinary argument. The logic of it is that if one had regional magistrates' courts committees— in other words, if one had 10 rather than 50 or 60— that also would be an even more strongly decentralising process, because one would have regional magistrates' committees taking up a good deal of their time allocating funds between the different parts of their region; and the Lord Chancellor's Department would have a less difficult task than the Lord Chancellor himself described. I do not think that anybody on the ground would see the matter that way. Indeed, if anybody within the area of a magistrates' court committee or the area of a group of magistrates' courts committees thought that they would benefit in the way that the Lord Chancellor suggests, then surely they would be the ones putting forward proposals for amalgamation rather than having it imposed upon them by the Lord Chancellor.
Let us be quite clear about what is proposed in the Bill. Whatever is said about consultation— consultation is, of course, provided for— what is proposed is that the Lord Chancellor's Department shall be able to enforce alteration, amalgamation or division against the advice of those who are consulted. If they were in favour of it, they would propose it themselves and the amendment would provide for that. What is being proposed is a
532
forced amalgamation or splitting. That is the crux of the matter. That is the reason why I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor's answer is adequate to the case put by the proposers of the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Taking Amendment No.144, which I moved in the first place, my amendments really sought to find some way of making the Lord Chancellor wait before he takes action. There is enough evidence to show that if people are to have changes they need to get accustomed to them long before they take effect. Simply having the opportunity to consult without any obligation on the consultation process is probably not adequate for what I seek.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the fact that this process is not decentralising in the eyes of the people on the ground. Let us take the example of my county, which is a very small one, being amalgamated with Hampshire, which is a very big one. Knowing that it is intended by this process to give powers to control local funds to the lead authority, in effect my county council will lose its powers— nobody has ever suggested that it shall not be an independent county— and our possibilities of achieving the right balance of funds from our nearby neighbour will probably, on the whole, be rather less, goodwill though there is between us, if it has too much power over that money. At the moment we co-operate with them in all kinds of ways. I shall not bore the Committee with that fact. However, from our point of view the centralising factor now is what happens afterwards. But in the end there are the arbitrary powers of my noble and learned friend to say,"You are to go together whether you like it or not." When I have read the record of the debate, I shall seek to find another way round that.
I see the shortcomings of my own amendment. It is not for me to speak for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who will speak for himself in a moment. However, I believe that there is good will in my noble and learned friend, but that there is a steely underpinning. It is a centralising underpinning, which I do not like. I hope that this Committee will find a way to temper that aspect in such a way that my noble and learned friend has to take more time before he makes any decisions.
The Lord Chancellor: Since we are at Committee stage, I should make it clear that I have no wish to hurry in this matter. I believe that such matters get much better with time. I have no desire to hurry. I am sorry that my noble friend feels that a decision taken between Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is more central than a decision taken in London. That is the point that I am trying to make. People in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight together know a good deal more about the relative merits and needs of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight than I do, much as I admire the Isle of Wight. Possibly I know more about it, thanks to my noble friend, than I do about Hampshire.
However, the fact is that local people know best how the moneys should be divided. That is why I believe that it is a decentralising measure. I agree' that if you go to the lengths described by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, you could finish up with one authority, though I doubt

533
whether these proposals, properly construed, would allow one to go that distance. The decision would be central only if you can go that distance. But the point is that the decision-making on the allocation of money is not with the centre; it is not with London but with the local units.
What brought me to my feet was the issue of time. I shall not weary the Committee, save to say that I am in no hurry whatever about this matter. I am perfectly content to look at it very carefully and slowly. From my experience of these matters, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that these amalgamations require great care and attention. If done carefully they can often, as she put it, avoid bloodshed and eventually show a considerable improvement in the locality.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for his remarks. Without wishing to offend any of my noble friends from Hampshire, I must say that their understanding, particularly at official level, of what happens on the Isle of Wight is probably less than the understanding in Whitehall. Practically everybody in mainland England knows very little about how to run the Isle of Wight. We have been trying hard with Whitehall for some years and it is beginning to understand some of the problems. I shall not press the matter further at this stage. I shall read what has been said with great care. I shall certainly reserve the right to return at the next stage of the Bill, but at this point I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.145:
Page 30, line 23, leave out ("Whether or not proposals have") and insert ("If a proposal has").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already addressed the Chamber in general terms on this amendment. It seems to be common ground between me and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that a balance has to be held between economies of scale on the one hand and maintenance of the local nature of the committees on the other. The issue between us is, who is to hold the balance?
If there were no available control open to my noble and learned friend ensure that there was no ignoring of economies of scale when it should be the motivating factor, I should understand his urge for further power. But when I addressed the Chamber I drew attention to three, if not more, bases on which the control existed: the discipline of the financial constraints; the work of the inspectorate; the work of the Audit Commission under Section 81, and the operation of Clause 67(3). My noble and learned friend addressed himself to none of those points. Therefore I infer that he accepts that they provide substantial controls; otherwise he would have told the Committee to the contrary.
In addition, we pointed to the default clause which comes in after Clause 80. My noble and learned friend did address himself to that point and said that he thought it would make matters worse. I do not understand how it makes matters worse to operate a default provision which is heavily armoured against perverse decisions by requiring, among other things, a report from Her
534
Majesty's— if it is so Chief Inspector, compared with moving in on an amalgamation against the wishes ex hypothesi of the magistrates' courts committee and, more importantly too, where there is no indication of any inadequate use of resources.
In those circumstances, I believe that this is a matter of considerable importance upon which the Committee ought to express its opinion. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord was speaking to Amendment No.145, but necessarily with that amendment goes Amendment No.146. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out, and as I understood it, Amendment No.146 imposes a veto on amalgamation. It would have the result that when there are within the same county two magistrates' courts committees, each representing a fairly small area and not a large population, and where there is an obvious case for amalgamation, under Amendment No.146 amalgamation could not take place if the members of the magistrates' courts committee allowed their particular interest and their local pride to step in the way. Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, saying therefore that there should be such a veto?
Lord Ackner: No.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will wish to respond when he puts the amendment to the Vote, as he indicated that he would. But the Chamber has agreed to a grouping for this amendment and has debated this whole series of amendments, as did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his reply to the previous amendment.
When the noble and learned Lord presses Amendment No.145, as I hope he will, I hope that it will be understood that he does so for his other amendments in this group— namely, Amendments Nos.146,148,149,150,151 and 208— but that the withdrawal of Amendment No.144 by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, means also that he will not press Amendments Nos.147 or 153.
Lord Elton: As the noble and learned Lord hesitates to rise to answer my noble friend Lord Renton, perhaps I may remind the Committee that the power of one committee to veto a proposal to amalgamate means that it may be one of three committees and it may he by a majority of only one vote of that one committee. So one is giving a veto to a very small proportion of the people interested. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will address that point.
Lord Ackner: The assumption in all the questions is that there will be a measure of perversity in the operations of the representatives of magistrates' courts committees. If such a degree of perversity arises, that is exactly when the default powers can be effectively brought into operation.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not wish to go into this matter again in any detail. However, the benefit of amalgamation may be absolutely apparent without any defaults of any kind in the standards of justice

535
administered in a locality. I am sure, to take the bench amalgamations which were referred to by the noble
Baroness, Lady Nicol, that in that case they did not wait until justice had got into a mess in the localities before
they did them. They may have feared that it might have done so, but I am sure that they acted before then.
There is a confusion here. Either these are to be used as default powers, in which case they can only be used if there is a demonstrated failure that has lasted for some time except in cases of great urgency— and I do not think that an amalgamation would be a suitable step to be used in a case of great urgency— or the local committee, one-half with one extra of a local committee, could veto this. I find it very difficult to see
why that could be thought to be better than Leaving the matter in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, subject to
judicial review and also to a very stringent obligation to consult. As I said, I am willing to consider any other safeguards that might be thought wise. But I believe that to give a veto to one of the committees subject to this consideration is really to destroy the whole basic idea.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may reply to that. I note again that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has not addressed himself, although the opportunity existed, to the controls which I have emphasised again and again exist for him to use. I only rise to deal with the point about judicial review. As my noble and learned friend knows as well as I do, judicial review is not a process of appeal. It would have to be established not that the Lord Chancellor's decision was an unsatisfactory one or one which was likely perhaps to be to the disadvantage of the general organisation, but that it was perverse, which means that no Lord Chancellor properly operating his office could have arrived at that decision. That is a degree of protection which is very, very slight in the context of this situation. I shall proceed to press my amendment.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.145) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,127; Not-Contents,153.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

[Teller]

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Monkswell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

[Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Parry, L.

Hampton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Hooson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Leigh, L.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Burnham, L.

Chancellor.]

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colwyn, L.

Milvetton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Morris, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Palmer, L.

Digby, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dormer, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selborne, E.

Elton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainsborough, E.

[Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tollemache, L.

Goschen, V.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Vinson, L.

Henley, L.

Wakeham. L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Howe, E.

Westbury, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Keyes, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.31 p.m.
[Amendments Nos.146 to 151 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.152:
Page 31, line 32, leave out ("district") and insert ("county").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. Amendment No.202 in Clause 75 deals with the same matter. it rectifies a mistake in the definition of the meaning of the term "unitary authority". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.153 not moved.]
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Constitution of magistrates' courts committees]:
Lord Mottisitone Lord Mottisitone moved Amendment No.154:
Page 32, line 1, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.154 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.156, which is the substantive amendment. It is most important for magistrates' courts committees, however constituted, to manage their own affairs, and co-opted members should only he proposed locally, as is the case currently with advisory committees to the Lord Chancellor. I ask my noble and learned friend how the Lord Chancellor can know who best to appoint under subsection (2) (b). He will have to have local advice, and that is always suspect
538
if coming from an unspecified source. Co-opted members should be suggested by the magistrates' courts committee itself, subject to the approval of my noble and learned friend, as is the case with magistrates when they are proposed. That surely is good enough. Therefore, I hope my noble and learned friend will agree that he is giving himself excessive powers in calling for paragraph (b). I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Generally speaking, I agree with what my noble friend has said. However, I would expect this power to be used in only very exceptional circumstances. I have considered quite carefully, in the light of the amendments proposed, whether I should trouble about it, but I think that there might be circumstances in which it would be wise.
Some time ago— I do not wish to be too specific— I encountered a problem which has a bearing on the matter. Under the powers which presently exist for co-opting, the local magistrates' courts committees have power to co-opt a High Court judge, a circuit judge or a county court judge. That power has normally been used, where used, for the purpose of co-opting the liaison judge nominated to be the liaison judge between the senior judiciary and the magistrates in a particular locality. in this case the presiding judges in a particular circuit decided that the appointment of liaison judge should be changed. The person who was liaison judge had ceased to be so for reasons which I need not go into; reasons connected with the other duties that he. had. The local magistrates had known the first judge very well and were extremely reluctant to have the change.
I can see in that kind of situation questions about the relationship between the magistracy and the higher judiciary which might create problems. I would expect this power to be used only very rarely; but I can see some situations in which it would be a desirable power to have in the interests of justice as a whole.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That is an interesting statement; but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord recognises, as I am sure he does, that the assurance that he has just given operates as long as he is Lord Chancellor. What we are talking about here is the language of the statute. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might consider an appropriate amendment to limit this power to some degree. Although his words are reassuring, his successors may not necessarily adopt the same position as he does.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand what the noble Lord says. The present power to co-opt is rather limited. I am trying to open that up and to give a rather freer power to co-opt. I have tried to see what difficulties there might be. I have no great attachment to wanting to nominate people. On the other hand, I am anxious that I do not do anything which in the long run, in occasional situations, might cause difficulties. I do not know that it is easy to think of limitations. If any Member of the Committee can think of a wise limitation for this purpose, I should certainly want to consider it. I do not think it would be right to restrict it to the particular situation I described, which occurred once. It might be wise to look for something more general. I am happy to

539
consider any suggestions that might be made in that connection. I just think it a little unwise to give up this power altogether.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should have thought that the issue is very readily resolved. All we need is an amendment which says that the Lord Chancellor can nominate to the committee the liaison judge for the time being. If then the local magistrates' courts committee wishes to retain the services of the previous liaison judge, it can use its power of co-option to keep him or her on the committee. The very specific example given by the Lord Chancellor does not seem to justify the very wide powers that are given in the clause.
It may have been my fault in not rising to speak to Amendment No.155, but we have not dealt with the provision in the Bill which proposes that co-options by the magistrates' courts' committee should be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. That is a very serious piece of centralisation and an imposition of the power of the Lord Chancellor and his department on the actual membership of the magistrates' courts' committee. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has told us, I hope that his reluctance to make appointments to the magistrates' courts' committee will extend to a reluctance to exercise the power which the Bill gives him of approval of co-options by the magistrates' courts' committees themselves.
There is also in the same group the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. But of the alternatives offered, I prefer Amendment No.155 because it also removes the power of approval by the Lord Chancellor for co-option by the magistrates' courts' committee. I shall be interested to have the Lord Chancellor's view both on that power and on my suggestion that it would be perfectly easy to restrict the power of additional appointment to the liaison judge, if that is the only example which the noble and learned Lord can give.
Lord Gisborough: Perhaps it is appropriate to speak about Amendment No.157 at this stage. The Lord Lieutenant normally chairs the advisory committee in the selection of magistrates. It is important that Lords Lieutenant should either sit as magistrates themselves or on the magistrates' courts' committee. At present they are ex-officio members of the magistrates' courts' committee. Some attend regularly— in fact some are chairmen— and others do not attend. Those who do attend see it as a valuable link with the advisory committee which should be maintained. There is to be an appointments' panel set up by regulation to appoint members of the magistrates' courts' committee. It seems particularly important that the Lord Lieutenant should sit on that body partly for that reason and partly to give additional continuity.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may ask a question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and thereby, I fear, reveal my total ignorance on this subject. Looking at Clause 63, it seems to me that if the magistrates' courts' committee puts up two very worthy non-justices of the peace to be co-opted
540
members, the Lord Chancellor will be in some difficulty in failing to approve the appointments. He would then be unable to appoint the liaison judge because the total of the co-options, whether by him or by the committee with his approval, is limited to not more than two other members. I cannot believe that that is what he wanted.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that the total number of co-options is two. Perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. If the problem arose under these provisions, as it arose in the past, we might well have a situation where the preferred candidate, so far as the magistrates are concerned, is sought to be kept in. I believe that it would be highly undesirable to have two people on the committee at one time who were there by virtue of their position, past and present, as liaison judges. What I anticipate happening is that if the presiding judges of the circuit think that Judge X should do something else inconsistent with continuing as the liaison judge, then the judge comes off the magistrates' courts' committee and the new one goes on in his place. All I am concerned with is to ensure that that can be done smoothly even if there happens to be some friction. I believe that the ultimate decision on that matter should not be left to the magistrates' courts' committee.
As I said, I am very willing to consider the matter. I am not sure that the problem would arise only in relation to liaison judges. Naturally, I have had some experience of personnel problems from time to time at magistrates' courts. It may be that the Lord Chancellor has reason for thinking that someone should not be a member of the magistrates' courts committee and is able to give the committee that reason and so inform it better of the situation. If his consent is not required, there is no need to bring any appointment to his attention. As I said, I believe that these powers will be required only in very exceptional circumstances, but I doubt whether it is an improvement to abolish them altogether.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am puzzled as to whether there is a power to remove. If the two nominee spaces have been taken up, then, unless one of them happens to be a liaison judge who perhaps could be influenced into retiring, and if the power is not there, I do not see how it can be used.
The Lord Chancellor: It is possible to arrange the terms and conditions under regulations. I would anticipate that somebody is co-opted for a period. It may well be that they should be co-opted so long as they have an appointment as a liaison judge. That would be perfectly reasonable. I put it no higher than this: it could give rise to difficulties if the local magistrates felt that they should adhere to the former liaison judge and the higher judiciary thought differently. Differences of opinion of that kind have emerged, but not often. Sometimes steps can be taken to prevent such developments but I have had at least one experience of it happening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is still a very broad power for a very specific and perceived problem. I know

541
that the Lord Chancellor will be open to suggestions between now and a later stage as well as across the Floor of the Chamber. Surely, the matter could be dealt with by saying that the Lord Chancellor can appoint the liaison judge for the time being— in other words, while he is the liaison judge— and that problems about the quality of the membership of the magistrates' courts' committee, like any problems about a police authority or local authority, are really those of the committee or the authority rather than of the Lord Chancellor. Any default powers which he needs should be dealt with through powers of removal of those who are unfit in certain specific circumstances. That is what is done in police authorities. Surely, that is the right way to proceed in this case.
A problem about membership of the magistrates' courts committee is not the Lord Chancellor's problem; it is the committee 's. I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that he talks with those putting forward these amendments between now and Report stage about restricting the powers of appointment to the liaison judge for the time being and for adding to the Bill such safeguards as he believes necessary for removal of those who are unsuitable or unfit.
Lord Digby: As Amendment No.157 has been grouped with this amendment, I wish to support my noble friend. I believe that his amendment is defective in that he speaks about Lords Lieutenant, when he should talk about Custos Rotulorum. However, that does not really matter in the 1979 Act where reference is made to a Keeper of the Rolls. It is merely that we would like that section to be left in. The Custos Rotulorum is the chief magistrate and as such has a traditional responsibility for the magistrates' courts. I appreciate that the intention of the reduction in the size of the magistrates' courts' committees is that members should not be delegates of their benches and I certainly support that object. But magistrates are human. The vast majority have great pride and intense loyalty to their own bench and its way of working. In my county, that loyalty is very masked and is quite different in the different petty sessional areas. They have different ways of working. Each is convinced that its methods are conducive to the highest level of justice. Feelings run deep.
My position as chairman of the Dorset magistrates' courts committee has been the most difficult and worrying of all my duties. I have tried to resign every year, but have been persuaded to remain by all the chairmen of the different benches because they believe that the Keeper of the Rolls, by virtue of his office, can consider the problems from a county-wide perspective without local prejudice. I must tell the Committee that many members are prepared to accept guidance from the Keeper of the Rolls which they might not accept from the chairmen of the different benches. Therefore, I think that there is an argument to keep the Keeper of the Rolls on the magistrates' courts committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may make a general observation which arises clearly from this amendment but applies also to a great many other amendments. This is widely felt to be a centralizing
542
measure, so it calls for caution. Perhaps I may suggest that we should show great caution in granting very wide general powers to central government because they might be needed, to adopt my noble and learned friend's phrase, in some very rare and unusual circumstances.
Viscount Ridley: As the Lords Lieutenant are mentioned in this group of amendments, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether there is any intention of interfering with the Lords Lieutenant's advisory committee which appoints magistrates. That seems to be about the only thing that is not being dug up to see how the roots are doing. I hope very much that this system, which I believe has worked very well, will be allowed to continue without interruption.
The Lord Chancellor: I was seeking to explain that the Bill deals basically with the responsibilities which, as far as the magistrates' courts are concerned, ministerially rested with the Home Secretary until 1st April 1992. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the arrangements for the appointment of magistrates. As I mentioned earlier, those arrangements appear to me to be working extremely well. The Lords Lieutenant have been at the centre of the local administration of the advisory committees which nominate magistrates to me. Almost without exception, those nominations have been extremely valuable and acceptable. There is no intention whatever of interfering with that in any way.
The intention of the Bill in relation to the magistrates' courts committees is to make them responsible for the management of the local magistrates' courts service so that they will, in effect, be the responsible authority for that within the locality. We intend to provide that the Lords Lieutenant will have the right to attend any magistrates' courts committee. The same applies for the liaison judge. As my noble friends have said, some Lords Lieutenant attend; others do not. It depends a great deal on their inclination and skills.
I believe that it is important that a group with management responsibility should not be too large. That view has been generally endorsed by the service in the consultations that we have carried out. Twelve is thought to be about right. We shall discuss an amendment later relating to the minimum number. Therefore, the question is whether a seat on the magistrates' courts committee should automatically be reserved for the Lord Lieutenant. In fact, in theory, the Lord Chancellor could appoint as Keeper of the Rolls someone other than the Lord Lieutenant; so including the Keeper of the Rolls would not oust a nomination from the Lord Chancellor, which is something to which some object, but that has usually been so.
The reason that I have not automatically provided a seat on the committee for the Lord Lieutenant is that I think that an effective management committee should be small. Where a Lord Lieutenant is interested in that aspect of a magistrates' courts committee, he may be elected as a magistrate because normally the Lord Lieutenant is a magistrate and will therefore be elected by his fellow magistrates in accordance with the

543
arrangements. If they feel that that is not the best way to proceed, they could co-opt the Lord Lieutenant as a member of the committee.
I felt that providing automatic membership for a Lord Lieutenant was not the wisest course. My noble friends will know that we have had some correspondence about this with the Lords Lieutenant, and some of my officials met the Lords Lieutenant as a body. I certainly had the impression that, speaking generally, the arrangement that we were proposing was reasonably acceptable. We are leaving it as a local arrangement. If the Lord Lieutenant is interested, it is likely that he will be appointed to the committee either as a co-opted member or by the election procedure. If the Lord Lieutenant was not interested, it would be a pity if he were to take up a place which might otherwise be occupied. That is the thinking behind the present arrangement. I think that we have taken proper account of the position of the Lords Lieutenant.
Lord Mottistone: We are speaking mainly to Amendment No.154 at this stage. I must confess that I think that my noble and learned friend's persistence in wanting to have the facility to appoint co-opted members— presumably one or two, because it cannot be more than two according to what is stated earlier in the clause— is something that he might like to reconsider. We might find some machinery or a way of describing this (perhaps on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh) that might help to deal with the sort of point that we have been discussing.
It is all very well to say that one wants a small magistrates' court committee of only 12 members. I cannot remember exactly, but my committee comprises about that number for dealing with what is probably the smallest bench in the country. It is by no means the case that members always attend. We have extra people from the county council who attend although they are not members of the committee. That is the way that we manage ourselves efficiently and is something of-which my noble and learned friend might like to take note.
The numbers are not particularly important. It seems reasonable that there should be an arrangement for the liaison judge (whether or not appointed by the court or, within the terms of the Bill, in some other way) to be an ex officio member. I should have thought that my noble friends who are Lords Lieutenant and who are pressing for the Keeper of the Rolls to continue (as is the position under the terms of Section 20(3) of the 1979 Act) also had a point. As has been said, some Lords Lieutenant will not attend. Indeed, some who are responsible for large areas cannot attend all the magistrates' courts committees with which they have to deal. Therefore, it is probably a mistake to be too rigid about the numbers.
It would be a good thing to have ex officio members who would probably not turn up at every meeting, particularly if they are called ex officio members. However, that would be a flexible way of ensuring that, where it is available, such expertise can be called upon.
I have never been asked by my magistrates' courts committee to chair it because it has always elected substantial, important and capable chairmen. They are
544
usually businessmen who are capable of dealing with such matters much more so than I. However, my noble friend Lord Digby said that he has been asked and it is proper that other people should be asked too. But he will not necessarily be asked if he is not an ex officio or automatic member, as has been the practice since 1979 and I suspect long before that.
I do not propose to press Amendment No.154. However, I should like my noble and learned friend to think carefully about his attitude to the issue of having his own appointing authority within paragraph (b). I shall certainly think about a way of wording an amendment so as to take care of what he said, probably on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps we can produce an amendment which will appeal more to my noble and learned friend when we reach the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.155 and 156 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.157:
Page 32, line 5, at end insert:
("() The Lord Lieutenant for the area to which a magistrates' courts committee relates shall by virtue of his office be a member of that committee.").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his explanation. Clearly, this is not an issue to pursue and I shall not move my amendment.
(Amendment No.157 not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 64 [Regulations as to constitution etc. of magistrates' courts committees]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.158:
Page 32, line 25, leave out from ("by") to end of line 26 and insert ("vote of the Benches as a whole").
The noble Lord said: I seek to remove the awful selection panel provision. Members of the magistrates' courts committee are elected by the bench as a whole from those JPs who volunteer. That works very successfully and I do not see that a selection panel will improve on that. More importantly, it will remove important responsibility from the bench as a whole in an area to which it attaches great importance. Of all the various committees to which members of my bench elect members, they take particular care to elect those whom they think most suitable to administer the affairs in the county, on behalf of the bench. It takes particular care to elect the best possible people. Therefore, we normally have as members people who are experienced in business and training and in various other areas which are particularly relevant. There are usually members who serve on the police authority, which provides a useful link. That is done by the bench as a whole and it is proud of it.
The unnecessary removal of responsibility from local bodies, in general let alone in this case, can contribute only to the reluctance of valuable people to serve in such office. In this and the earlier part cif the Bill, I am plugging to my noble and learned friend and my noble friend Lord Ferrers the fact that central government are

545
playing with fire in taking away responsibilities from local bodies. They are discouraging the good people from serving on those bodies. There has been a definite move away of good people from local authorities, which have become more party political, to the bench and the bench has benefited from that. But if one removes responsibilities from the benches people will instead devote their attention to worthy charities and the like. Local administration will suffer as a result.
I find the arguments in the memo on Clause 64 from the Lord Chancellor's Department to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee most unconvincing. They have an air of self-importance that I do not like. The existing powers given to the Lord Chancellor in Clause 21 of the 1979 Act are wholly adequate. The existing subsection (2) does not require replacement, hence the need for my Amendment No.159. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have agreed to the grouping of my Amendment No.160 with these two amendments. Amendment No.158 provides that there should be no fewer than 12 members of a magistrates' courts committee and that has the support of the Magistrates' Courts Consultative Council. It has devoted a great deal of debate to this matter and has reached the conclusion that such a minimum number is necessary in order to achieve a representation from as wide a base as possible while keeping the committee at a workable size.
The Lord Chancellor: This grouping of amendments covers two different points. Perhaps, first, I may deal with that made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone relating to the method by which the members of the magistrates' court committee are selected. I am sorry that my noble friend considered that the wording of the memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was self-important. It certainly was not intended to be. It is important, right enough, but that is a different matter!
My noble friend's amendment would not work in respect of a good number of magistrates' courts committees because there are a number of benches. He has the great advantage that in the Isle of Wight there is only one bench to consider. However, in many of the magistrates' courts committee areas there is more than one bench and an amendment which provides that the matter shall be dealt with by the bench as a whole is not appropriate.
We consulted fully on the matter and put forward the options of an elected committee elected directly by the bench or a panel of the bench which selected people to serve on the committee. There is also the fact that for effective management in this area it is important that people are not seen too much as being representatives of particular interests but rather as working together to manage the service z. s a whole in the area for which they have responsibility. In our pure election arrangement, there is no mechanism for ensuring that the necessary mix of skills is represented.
We did not wish to go forward on this issue without consulting the service and we put those options to the service in a consultation paper. Of the 71 respondents to the consultation paper who expressed an opinion,50favoured the selection procedure proposed in the Bill and only 21
546
favoured the election procedure suggested by this amendment. It is notable that that majority of 50 included the representative bodies of all those who work and serve in the magistrates courts service— the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Association of Magisterial Officers, the Standing Conference of Clerks to Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Magistrates' Association.
The second of the amendments is consequential on that and I need not deal with it separately.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seeks to put a statutory lower limit of 12 on the size of magistrates' courts committees. In addition, it would provide that, for the purposes of that minimum number, co-opted and appointed members would not count as committee members. Although the Bill as it stands allows the Lord Chancellor to regulate both upper and lower limits on the number of committee members, it had not been my intention to set a lower limit. The upper limit was, until recently,35; it is now, for a transitional period, set at 20, and I have announced my intention to reduce this further, to 12. The service's representative bodies have agreed, in its Alternative Framework, that the upper limit which I propose will permit committees to operate efficiently and effectively. I am content to leave the lower limit to the local committees to decide. Indeed if it helps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I should be willing to consider deleting altogether the power to set a lower limit. That may not entirely suit his purpose but it seems to me that that matter could be left to local control. However, it is important not to have too large a committee.
For the reasons given, the system proposed by my noble friend would not work generally and a different system is required. The system proposed in the Bill was favoured by the vast majority of those working in the service whom we consulted. I can see attractions in the different systems but we put forward this system as a result of consultation. As regards the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, perhaps I may meet the points that he makes in the way that I suggested.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to think about the offer made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I shall seek the views of the Magistrates' Courts Consultative Committee. Therefore, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his remarks and for explaining why new subsection (1A) is to be inserted after subsection (1) of Section 21 of the 1979 Act. In view of what my noble and learned friend said, I wonder whether the matter needs to be so comprehensive. I admit that the majority of people agreed but on earlier amendment, people were rather scornful about majority opinions. Would my noble and learned friend find it acceptable to have the option of an MCC elected by a Bench, if it so wished, or a selection panel if the organisation were larger? That may be a way

547
through. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend wishes to respond to that or whether he will leave me to think about it in the meantime.
The Lord Chancellor: I am always content to leave my noble friend to think about matters in the meantime, but I am willing to consider that possibility. A degree of uniformity is desirable but it may not be essential. Therefore, I am happy to consider whether we may accommodate my noble friend in that respect.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.159 and 160 not moved].
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Supplementary provisions as to magistrates' courts committees].
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I should point out that, if this amendment is agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No.162 in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.161:
Page 33, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: I see no need for the bulk of the amendments to Section 22 of the 1979 Act. That is why I seek to remove them. However, there is some merit in new subsections (8) to (11). That is why I have not sought to remove them. Furthermore, I welcome Amendment No.162 and I have no intention of not allowing it to be called.
A great deal of tinkering about is being done to the 1979 Act. That Act has worked well and it has given my noble and learned friend and his predecessors quite a lot of authority to manage magistrates' courts, in so far as that is necessary. In many cases, the provisions now go too far. For that reason, I ask my noble and learned friend to consider whether he needs all the proposed new powers in Section 22 or whether something less than that would be sufficient. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall speak to my Amendment No.162 when we come to it as it is not formally grouped with this amendment. However, I am glad that my noble friend welcomes it.
The provisions that he wishes to remove from the Bill are necessary. It is important to provide for the election of a chairman. The difficulty is that the inner London arrangements have always been rather different in some respects from the other provisions and it is necessary to include a special provision for London; that is, the provision which makes the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate chairman for the transitional period.
The third amendment would have the effect of preserving the provision that, in committee areas that are not divided into Petty Sessional Divisions so that they only have one justices' clerk, the justices' clerk shall act as clerk to the committee. Apart from metropolitan committees and committees for boroughs in outer London, the Isle of Wight is the only committee
548
in that position. Clerks to such committees are catered for by virtue of the new subsection (8) of Section 24D, which is inserted by Clause 68. Provision is made by the new Section 24(E), subsections (1) and (2), for the chief justices' clerk to act as clerk of the committee and for him to be able to delegate this function to a member of staff. The new provisions give much greater flexibility and local discretion to the committees than the provision which my noble friend seeks to preserve.
The other subsections which the amendment would remove are to provide that committees can act through sub-committees which include people who are not members of the magistrates' courts committee, which gives flexibility, and that committees can delegate any of their functions to either the chairman or the chief justices' clerk. Those provisions are permissive, and are designed to give magistrates' courts committees the greatest possible flexibility in managing the service for which they are responsible, and will, I believe, be regarded by committees as helpful.
To seek to remove the provisions is a retrograde step, and I am glad that my noble friend indicated that he would not press the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that explanation, which I shall read with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.162:
Page 33, line 4, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No.162 removes from the Bill the need for the magistrates' court committees choice of chairman to be approved by the Lord Chancellor. It makes it plain that the Government are committed to the local management of the magistrates' courts; committees will continue to be free, as at present, to appoint their own chairmen.
The provision which is being deleted was foreshadowed in the White Paper of April 1992 and had the intention of linking the Lord Chancellor as responsible to Parliament for the magistrates' courts with those responsible for the local management. The important thing is that the justice system in the magistrates' courts should be locally managed.
Having listened to what was said in the Chamber on Second Reading, and having discussed the matter fully with delegates of the national organisations representing those who work and serve in the magistrates' courts service, I concluded that while some people thought it was good to obtain an approval from the Lord Chancellor, other people thought they might do just as well without it. As that was the general attitude, I felt on the whole it was wise to take out this provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [General powers and duties of magistrates' courts committees]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No.163:
Page 33, line 40, at end insert ("including having regard to the needs of disabled people.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.163 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos.166 and 167.

549
I wish to start by conveying the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who had intended to be here to support these three amendments, but unfortunately with: he change of business he was unable to do so.
Amendment No.163 is designed to ensure that magistrates' courts committees will have a proper regard to the needs of people with disabilities. Amendments Nos.166 and 167 are intended to ensure that the directions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to magistrates' courts committees requiring them to meet specific standards of performance would include specific standards relating to disabled people. For disabled people there are many problems relating to access to the courts. This situation applies to people with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities and learning disabilities. They can be required in court as witnesses, defendants, jurors, justices of the peace, lawyers or indeed as relatives or friends of the defendant.
I understand that the current position is that all new courthouses, and existing courthouses that are undergoing significant alteration or extension, must comply with part M of the building regulations— that part of the building regulations deals with access to public buildings. The Home Office guide on magistrates' courts design has a section on access for disabled people which refers to part M as mandatory in the guidance for new court buildings. That section gives some extra guidance on courtroom design. There are, however, some 640 magistrates' courthouses and only between four and six new ones are built each year. Many of the recommendations made by the Access Committee for England were not included in the Home Office design guide. One of the recommendations that was not taken into account was that when assessing whether there is a need for a new courthouse, access for disabled people to the existing one should be taken into account.
The Access Committee for England has a working party which is looking at access to court buildings and it has found that the majority are not accessible to disabled people. It has also found evidence that part M of the building regulations has been waived when court refurbishment has taken place. In January last year when the courthouse at Selby in Yorkshire was undergoing refurbishment, the county council architects submitted a scheme that would have provided full access for disabled people. The scheme was turned down, however, in favour of one which gave only limited access, with special arrangements for people with disabilities being made on advance notice. This means that there is no access for disabled magistrates to courtroom No.1 and that the second courtroom remains inaccessible. There i3 no induction loop system for those with hearing difficulties.
Another example can be found in Tunbridge Wells. The magistrates' court there is on the third floor of a police building. A lift is being installed to the first two floors but not the third floor. I understand that the police say they do not have enough money to do that and that disabled people can either go to Sevenoaks or be carried upstairs by a policeman. However, that is not always practical as some disabled people are remarkably heavy.
550
What happens if a defendant turns up and is unable to gain access because of his disability and then is charged with failing to attend court?
There is a code of practice being drawn up by the Access Committee for England for law courts and I feel this could be used as the basis for a set of specific standards of performance which magistrates' courts committees would be expected to meet in carrying out their responsibility for the efficient and effective running of their courts. Such a code would include the following: awareness training for courtroom staff; the need to provide information in advance to those attending court on suitable parking areas and access to the building; the installation of proper adaptations to buildings to make certain that those in wheelchairs can get into the building, for example ramps, wide doors and other such measures and the provision of room for a wheelchair to move around, as needed, within the court. Court proceedings should be audible for those with hearing disabilities and support should be provided for deaf and hard of hearing people, if necessary with sign language interpreters.
In putting forward this series of amendments, I recognise that many of our magistrates' courts are in listed buildings and that the expectations of disabled people and those who support them must be tempered by the design of those buildings and the cost of adaptations. However, extensive adaptations have recently been made to the Royal Courts of Just ice where English Heritage was among the organisations consulted. This shows that such measures are possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support this group of amendments to which I have added my name. I endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about access to magistrates' courts. I wish to examine the question of support for deaf people and to go into a little more detail on that. Most deaf people, whether they are defendants or witnesses, will need some kind of communication support if they are to have full access to the proceedings— for example, a sign language interpreter or perhaps technical assistance in the form of palantype, where the spoken word is typed onto a screen, such as is used by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. As we have heard, the noble Lord is sad that he cannot be with us today; therefore the Committee has me as a poor substitute.
People who have both visual and hearing impairments might need a deaf-blind communicator. In 1993 the Royal Commission report on criminal justice recognised that deaf people must have free access within the criminal justice system to fully qualified interpreters. It made a number of recommendations. First, interpreters in the courtroom and when the suspect is being instructed by a solicitor should be of the highest standard. Secondly, a register of fully qualified interpreters at national and local level should be drawn up. Thirdly, more funds should be made available to train interpreters. The Royal Commission accepted that it was often difficult to find fully qualified interpreters. At that time there were fewer than 100, and in recent years several cases have arisen in which the competence

551
of the interpreter has been questioned. Fourthly, a glossary of legal terms should be prepared for interpreters. Fifthly, courts should take responsibility for providing interpreters in the courtroom, paid for from central funds. Payments for interpreters where deaf people are being instructed by solicitors should come from legal aid.
At present the cost of court appearances by interpreters is met from central funds at the discretion of the court. That usually works satisfactorily but the system needs to be safeguarded by law because in two cases in 1993 defendants were charged for interpreters' fees. The right to interpreters also needs to be extended to the deaf parents of hearing juvenile defendants.
I should like briefly to say a word about other forms of support for deaf people in magistrates' courts. All courtrooms should be fitted with induction loops or infrared systems and minicoms should be available, both to receive incoming calls from deaf people or for deaf people in courts to use to make calls.
I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to give an encouraging reply to these amendments.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I have the greatest sympathy with the amendment and its purpose. I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is associated with the amendment. However, I do not necessarily accept the valuation which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), placed on herself when she referred to the noble Lord.
It is highly important that the public service, and the magistrates' courts service in particular, should be accessible to all members of society. That is a direct indication of the value that we place on their role as individuals in society.
The provision of magistrates' courts is the responsibility of local authorities. They are obliged to meet all statutory requirements, including those which apply to disabled people. However, as has been pointed out by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), many magistrates' courts are housed in old and historic buildings which were not designed for use by people with, for example, restricted mobility or impaired vision. So far as we can we should seek to modernise those facilities and improve what can be provided for disabled people.
The Government are seeking to do that. There are, of course, difficulties in relation to some of the older buildings in achieving that. In respect of new buildings considerable attention has been paid to the matter. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to say what excellent provision has been made for disabled people in the new magistrates' court in Newport on the Isle of Wight, which I had the privilege of opening not long ago. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, I was in Lincolnshire on Friday and saw the plans for the new magistrates' court which is to be built in Grantham. Again, considerable thought has been given to access to the courts for disabled people.
552
The guidance in respect of new buildings is contained in the Magistrates' Courts Design Guide published in 1991, to which my noble friend referred. The guidelines cover such matters as provision for disabled magistrates and defendants, facilities for people in wheelchairs and design features to aid the blind, partially sighted and court users with impaired hearing. That guidance applies equally so far as possible to proposed improvements to existing buildings.
Local authority expenditure on such matters is covered by grant from central government. As the Committee realises, improvements and alterations to historic buildings can be expensive, but the Government give high priority to ensuring that the resources necessary to improve facilities for the benefit of disabled people are made available. I have been able to approve funding in the next financial year for each and every improvement project for the benefit of the disabled that local authorities have put to me.
I shall consider the details mentioned by the two speakers. We dealt with the question of interpreters for the deaf not long ago in relation to the research that is being undertaken to try to improve the general arrangements in that regard. In relation to the code of practice which is in preparation and to which my noble friend referred, we shall be delighted to see whether we can give full effect to the code once it is completed.
I very much agree with the sentiments behind the amendments. My noble friend who moved the amendment may feel that it is better that the spirit of the amendment should be observed than that the amendment itself should be put on the face of the Bill, because one would need to consider a number of other groups whose needs should be taken into account in the design of new facilities for courts or in the improvement of old ones.
I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurances that I have sought to give with regard to his anxieties.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will have in mind that, if a reference to provision for the needs of disabled people can be put on the face of the Bill, it will strengthen the argument in individual cases for the installation of such equipment.
I am sure that all Members of the Committee accept as entirely sincere the remarks which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made and his indication of Government policy. But when one deals, as we shall have to in due course, with a large number of small cases involving quite small but appreciable expenditure, the fact that there is a provision in the Bill as suggested in the amendment that regard shall be had to the needs of disabled persons will surely strengthen the hands of those who are asking for that equipment to be installed.
I note that the amendment does not lay down firm conditions which have to be complied with in all cases. It merely provides that the work done shall "have regard to" the needs of disabled persons. I wOnder whether, in the light of his sympathetic reply, my noble and learned friend does not feel on reflection that to put that on to the

553
Bill will strengthen the case for putting in such equipment in many individual cases. I hope that he will look at the matter i i that way. I believe that he will find that, in view of the way in which the machine of government works, the fact that there is a statutory indication of support for a project strengthens the hand of those arguing for it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I welcome the positive note struck by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in responding to the amendment. However, again like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I believe that it wouli be desirable to have this provision on the face of the Bill. I find it difficult to see the argument against having it on the face of the Bill.
That view is strengthened by the two examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is a matter of some regret. It seems to me that with regard to the courthouse in Selby, quite deliberately, and no doubt for understandable reasons so far as concerns the people in Yorkshire, they opted for the limited access rather than the full access plan. It is rather bizarre— is it not?— to have a policeman carrying people up from the second floor to the third floor in the courthouse at Tunbridge Wells because the lift only goes to the second floor. That is a most extraordinary situation. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord were prepared to send those of us who have participated in the debate some note about those two specific examples. They strengthen my view that there should be provision on the face of the Bill. I hope that, co reflection, the noble and learned Lord will accede to the suggestion of his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not have details of the two examples. I shall seek to find out the basis underlying them. With regard to having the provision on the face of the Bill, I am content to consider how best we can achieve that. From that point of view, some of the amendments are more acceptable than others. Perhaps I may have an opportunity to consider. them.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble and learned friend for the assurance that he has just given the Committee, which I am sure we all welcome; I certainly do. I thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for pressing my noble and learned friend o the point. I do not intend to press the amendment tonight. Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I, too, should like to consider the issue.
The noble Bareness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) referred to the charge for interpreters using sign language for deaf people. When I was a justice of the peace sitting on the Dover and Sandwich Bench, it was not unusual to have people who had committed misdemeanours who were visitors from the Continent. They were provided' with interpreters for the various Continental languages which were spoken. Never once do I recall the Bench making an order that the defendant should pay the cost of the interpreter. I gather that it is in the powers of the Bench to make such a decision and that it is not unusual for the cost of an interpreter for a profoundly deaf person to be charged to that deaf
554
individual. I believe that that is wrong. if we had someone who did not speak the native languageEnglish— well, the court would go to a great deal of trouble, at no cost to the individual, to make him understand what was going on, in particular with regard to someone with learning difficulties. The matter should be seriously considered and guidance given to members of Benches.
I thank all who have taken part in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.164:
Page 33, line 41, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I wish to suggest to my noble and learned friend that there is no need for subsection (2) of new Section 22A. I suggest that my noble and learned friend should be content with the guidance given in subsection (1) of the new section and should leave it to the magistrates' courts committee as to how they provide "efficient and effective administration". The inspectorate will keep my noble and learned friend informed about how successful the system is.
I do not believe that primary legislation is the place in which to provide the details outlined in subsection (2). There are many examples. I have picked out the provision in one of the subsections to make the point to my noble and learned friend. I have already made the point in other respects: that it is overgilding his powers of guidance and authority. With great respect, during the past five or six years, an enormous number of pamphlets has been sent to us on how to perform our affairs. Generally speaking, we have acted before we have received the pamphlets. I suggest that he might like to consider many small parts of the Bill such as subsection (2). They are not necessary, especially as the noble and learned Lord has an inspectorate. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This is simply an administrative power given to the magistrates' courts committees. It is not a power to the Lord Chancellor. The provision gives the magistrates' courts committees power to allocate administrative responsibilities among the various persons who are there specified. I believe that it is a proper capacity and freedom to manage for the committees and that in order that they should manage effectively— that is what we all wish them to do— they should have this power. It is not a direction; it is simply a power to make the allocation. They may not need to exercise the power in great detail. On the other hand, the committees may in some circumstances consider that they should exercise it. That is a matter entirely for them. No power of the Lord Chancellor is involved. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend may feel able to leave the power to the magistrates' courts committee.
Earl Russell: I am not certain that the noble and learned Lord has entirely addressed the point of the amendment. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the point was whether the matter should be spelt out in primary legislation. As the Committee knows, I am generally an enthusiast for spelling matters

555
out in primary legislation, but even I should have thought that perhaps in this case the provision was excessive. Do we need to find time for an Act of Parliament if those arrangements are ever to be changed? I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think a little more about the case.
Lord Swinfen: I support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Subsection (1) states:
"A magistrates' courts committee shall be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates' courts for their area".
Subsection (2), which my noble friend seeks to remove, spells out what parts they ought to consider, or some of them. If subsection (2) is left in the Bill, the committees may consider only those aspects of efficient and effective administration, and not other aspects of administration to which they ought to attend. I should have thought that subsection (2) was superfluous.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for those observations. First, the power is a power; it is by no means exclusive. it is intended as a specific power allowing the allocation of administrative responsibilities. I am not clear that without the subsection it would be proper for the magistrates' courts committee necessarily to allocate the administrative responsibilities in that way. It is important that the committees should have that power. I believe that it is desirable that the provision should be spelt out to that level of detail. The level is not great, but it gives the committees the overall responsibility for allocation.
Accordingly, while I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, takes a different line from that which he often follows, I do not believe that at present it would improve the Bill to take that specific power away from the magistrates' courts committees. The assumption appears to be that, if the provision is taken away, nothing is removed, but I am not certain that that is so.
Lord Mottistone: I do not wish to pursue the matter. However, I implore my noble and learned friend to open his mind on the issue. If the magistrates' courts committees under the terms of subsection (1) cannot undertake subsection (2) without the power being spelt out in legislation, they are not being given enough authority under subsection (1). I seek all the time to convey to my noble and learned friend that they do not need to be told what to do by his department; they can get on with it very well. He has a beautiful inspectorate to show him when they are not getting on well with it. I shall not pursue that further.
I wish to make a point about the succeeding Amendments Nos.165,168 and 169 which my noble friend— if I may so describe him— Lord Tenby will move for us both. I hope that my noble friend will agree that Amendments Nos.165,168 and 169 should be taken together because they are consequential on each other, rather than being separate, as the guidance for grouping indicates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No.165 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos.166 or 167.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby moved Amendment No.165:
Page 34, line 7, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No.165. I am much obliged to my noble friend— may I say that?— Lord Mottistone for making the point about Amendments Nos.168 and 169. Although they are not formally grouped together, they are consequential, so I am obliged to the Committee for its kindness in letting me embrace them all.
Clause 66 refers to the powers and duties of magistrates' courts committees. It enables the Lord Chancellor to give directions to magistrates' courts committees requiring each of them to take specified steps and to establish performance standards for magistrates' courts committee areas, including giving directions to them to ensure that they communicate effectively with magistrates in their area. It also enables the Lord Chancellor to give directions that arrangements in turn are adequate to enable the magistrates to communicate with the MCCs.
If performance standards are not to be imposed nationally but by area, the Lord Chancellor's Department will inevitably end up by imposing standards on that area. There can be no other interpretation. For example, there might be a direction as to the level of courtroom use throughout the year; something which, surely, I submit, would be better determined in the light of local knowledge and experience.
On looking at the clause, I have to say with some sadness that the recent prolonged consultation between the Lord Chancellor's secretariat and magistrates— and I say this with diffidence— has resembled nothing so much as a carefully crafted public relations exercise. I speak as an old PR hand— and it takes one to know one.
The area covered by the amendments illustrates the point admirably. At no stage in Decision Paper No.7, 00Communication Within the MCC Area, is there set out the power of the Lord Chancellor to decide standards as to how MCCs should communicate with their Benches. Indeed, the paper bends over backwards to declare its support for local autonomy. Bench liaison meetings? This matter will be for local decision. The form newsletters might take? Let the individual MCC decide. Upward communication of ideas— that is, from individual Benches to the MCC? The Government believe it to be inappropriate to prescribe mechanisms for achieving that.
What happened to all those fine liberal sentiments between publication of the paper in August 1993 and the last minute publication of the Bill shortly before the Christmas recess? I cannot guess. But I and others in the magisterial service are saddened by it. I have to add that it seems to confirm what became apparent to me the longer the consultation process went on. There was much listening, much pleasantly conveyed sympathy, but no meeting of minds and very little flexibility indeed.

557
Put briefly, the amendment is all about common sense. Do we believe that every area of England and Wales is exactly the same, be it conurbation or countryside, and that members of MCCs— experienced, senior and committed magistrates as they are— will be unable to communicate competently with their fellow magistrates without the assistance of the Lord Chancellor's Department? I believe that such a presumption is as wounding as it is misconceived. I do not use those words lightly. But if Members of the Committee believe it, then this clause in the Bill passes muster. I hope that [may have convinced the Committee otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I wish to support my noble friend in his remarks and in the wise comments that he made from practical experience. In supplementing what he said, I pick out a few points. I suggest that performance standards set from above are totally inappropriate. On Amendment No.168, it is no business of my noble and learned friend to tell people how to communicate locally. When he has a useful report from the inspectorate, he can circulate advice to MCCs on detailed matters. That is the way to do it; not to think it up from "experts" at the centre but to use the information that one gets from the grass roots. Then one can leave the tnagi3trates' courts committees to get on with it.
I have many examples which I plan to send to my noble and learned friend of circulars which he has been sending out during the past five years or so which my MCC, or Bench or both have put into effect, sometimes before the circular arrives, without any prodding from him or his department. An example on which he has not prodded us but which we think is a good idea is that in conjunction with our local training and enterprise council we have adopted, for the purpose of the employees of our MCC Investor in People, a publication which was circulated by the Department of Employment, a splendid piece of advice. That is the kind of thing which a forward-looking MCC will do on its own account. With the greatest possible respect, I do not suppose that the Lord Chancellor's Department has even heard of it. If it has, I am surprised that it has not been put into one of its recent circulars.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will see that some of the proposals are not only unnecessary but are positively harmful to the magistrates who are experienced, responsible people or they would not be there. They do not need to be told what to do by "Auntie Government" every time the bell strikes.
The Lord Chancellor: These are powers, not obligations, to carry out the legislation. Amendment No.208 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, deals with the question of default. It states:
"The Lord Chancellor may make an order under subsection (2) below if he is of the opinion that, without reasonable excuse, a magistrates' courts committee … is failing properly to discharge any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment, or … has so failed, and is likely to do so again".
I should have thought that before one came to detailed examples of failure, it would be wise to indicate what was required. It is in that situation that powers such as those in question would be used. My noble friend has
558
instanced a number of circulars which we have sent him or his local committee. I gained the impression that on the whole he felt that what we were advising was right, but, the Isle of Wight being so advanced, it had already done it before our circulars arrived. I have to say that not every MCC may be as enlightened as that of the Isle of Wight and, it does not seem wrong to give the benefit of anything that we have gained in the Isle of Wight, and other advanced places, to others. This is simply a power to lay out standards. The power is at the basis of the amendment which my noble friend Lord Swinfen proposed. It was in that regard that it was suggested that standards in respect of the disabled should be laid down.
I cannot do both. I cannot leave out the power to give directions and at the same time give effect to wishes that disabled people are properly looked after by magistrates' courts committees in the way that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said. This is not intended to be auntie government telling people what to do except in situations where that may be desirable. A failure of communication between the magistrates and the committee may well be a source of difficulty in connection with the administration of justice. That is the basis on which a default may arise.
I say 'to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend that these amendments seek to remove a power which may be highly useful as a preliminary to any kind of default arrangement. Obviously, I will take account of anything that is said by the Magistrates' Courts Inspectorate in these matters. It may he that, arising out of its reports, it will be wise to have local or national requirements. We have tried to keep that open. The last thing that I want to do is to insult local magistrates in any way. I am too concerned to try to get them to come forward. It is not all that easy to get people across the spectrum of backgrounds to act as magistrates, but we attempt to do that with the help of advisory committees. However, I do not wish to put a magistrates' courts committee into any kind of default arrangement without very good notice of what requirements I seek to have implemented.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Viscount will feel that our consultation was much more than a public relations exercise. I have never had anything to do with public relations in any professional sense. Therefore, the noble Viscount has an advantage over me in that respect. I do not wish to waste my time on that matter. I know that those who gave us advice on consultation devoted time to it, very often their own time. I carefully studied the situation. The fact that I do not accept all of the views proffered does not mean that I have not considered them carefully. I will take considerable note of them in deciding whether or not to exercise any of these powers.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: I believe that this matter should be known as the amendment of the revolving fork. The noble and learned Lord has attempted to impale the movers of the amendment on a fork. On the one hand, they ask for more prescription in primary legislation and, on the other hand, they ask for less. Of course, that

559
may have something to do with confidence in the purposes which are involved. I am sure that the purpose of assisting the disabled is one that we all share. The purpose of imposing standards of performance is perhaps where the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, earlier this afternoon detected steely underpinnings. I believe that in the process the noble and learned Lord has impaled himself on the fork on which the Government normally try to impale movers of amendments. Either they are wrecking or they are unnecessary. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suspected this proposal of being wrecking of magistrates' courts by interfering too much in the exercise of local discretion.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that this is only a power and he will not necessarily need to use it. Therefore, he runs the risk of having to admit that this proposal is unnecessary. The words "standards of performance" cause me some concern. We have only one conscience: our own. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said, if we are experienced professional people we have a conscience about how our job should be done. It is the only one by which we can honourably act. I say from experience that where standards of performance are imposed upon us from outside they will never be quite the same as our own standards of performance. In attempting to meet those standards very often we have the options of deliberately failing to meet them, or deliberately failing to act according to our conscience, or spending a great deal of unnecessary time in the concoction of fudge. Fudge is a very pleasant confectionery, but one can have too much of a good thing.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not particularly keen to be impaled upon a fork. I say that it may be necessary to use these powers. If in some situations they may require to be used, one is required to have them in the Bill. I hope and pray that I shall never have to find any magistrates' court committee in default. I strongly believe that it is highly unlikely that that will ever happen. Nevertheless, it is a wise proposal. I am supported in the need to have such a proposal by those who seek to amend my own. The question is: is it absolutely beyond the bounds of possibility that some of these standards may be required? It may be that the situation to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, refers will arise only in relation to default. However, there is also the question of helping people by using the experience of others to show what standards are appropriate to deal with these matters. To circulate best practice is a useful thing to do. Even if my view on the numbers ultimately proves to be correct, we will still have a large number of magistrates' courts committees. It is important that standards of performance should be available.
I entirely agree that the standards we set ourselves are, on the whole, those which are most likely to commend themselves to us, but it may be that examples of standards set and attained by others will help us to improve our own. I believe that history shows us that that can happen from time to time. I hope that the noble
560
Viscount will feel that the spirit in which the proposals are put into the Bill is in accordance with the possibility of their being required.
Lord Monkswell: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made two points. He said that he did not want to find magistrates' courts committees in default. He also said that he wanted to spread best practice and provide advice on best practice to magistrates' courts committees. Those are entirely laudable aims with which I am sure everyone in the Chamber will agree. The problem is that the particular clause about which we speak does neither. It does the opposite. It provides that the Lord Chancellor may give directions to magistrates' courts to meet certain standards of performance. Effectively, it pre-ordains that some magistrates' courts committees will not meet those standards and therefore will be in default. One will set up a mechanism by which to catch magistrates' courts committees. That is not the mechanism by which to provide advice on best practice. Surely, it can be done in some other way, not by this proposal.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: Perhaps I may put a rather simpler question. As I understand it, we are talking about a statutory power to give directions to magistrates' courts committees which specify what they are to do. Is my noble and learned friend really saying that statutory power to give directions is a necessary preliminary to the exercise of a default power? Surely, before a default power is exercised an informal ruling will be given. Magistrates' will be invited to cure the default. I should have thought that one would not need a statutory power of direction before the exercise of a default power.
Lord Chancellor: I hesitate to take issue with my noble and learned friend. I would feel very unhappy if I had to exercise any default power at all in respect of a magistrates' court committee. But I would feel it much safer to exercise default powers against a proved failure to meet a statutory standard than to proceed on any other basis. It is true that I would wish to do everything that I possibly could by informal means to avoid such a default. But if it comes to exercising a statutory default power, the Lord Chancellor would need to have very secure grounds on which to stand. A necessary part of that is specifying what is required before a default is found. I hope and believe that in most cases if that happened the default would be rectified without any further procedure. But it is necessary as a preliminary to that to have such power.
In regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I do not accept that the fact that the Lord Chancellor is given powers to do certain things necessarily means that he will require to exercise those powers. That depends on events that unfold in the future.
Viscount Tenby: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the trouble that he has taken to present his view. I appreciate that very much. He says that it is simply a power. That is one of the points that worries me and others. The term "power" is the problem. A much less enlightened and

561
sympathetic Lord Chancellor may come after him. All these measures will then be in position. It cannot be right— it simply does not work— for people who are very far away from the coal face to direct in minute detail the way in which members of magistrates' courts committees should be informing their magistrates. I am sorry, but I take that view. However, I am satisfied that the noble and learned Lord has, if I may use the phrase, taken what we have said on board. Accordingly, I should like to leave the matter there while I study what he has said today. I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.166 to 169 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Appointment and functions of chief justices' clerk]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.170:
Page 35, line 5, leave out ("justices' clerk") and insert ("executive").
The noble Lord said: I seek today to persuade the Committee that it would be sensible to make this modest and easily understood amendment to the Bill. I seek particularly to persuade my noble and learned friend that it would be sensible and wise. In moving the amendment, I should like to make clear that I have very much in mind one sentence from the speech of my noble friend Lord Carr at Second Reading when he stressed the need for a strong effort to reach consensus on the Bill before it leaves this House.
As I see it, the idea of a chief justices' clerk at least appears to be something of an obstacle in the way of achieving that consensus. It has awoken a very considerable amount of suspicion, fear and resentment. I should like to make it clear that, as I see things, that suspicion and fear is not directed at my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor so much as at the way in which this post could be used or misused by a successor with very different ideas to his own.
Throughout the Bill' one of the most worrying features is that there would seem to be a constant clash between those at the centre and those on the periphery (or at the fringe) of things. The centre is always very conscious of its good intentions. It is inclined to make much of the sympathy, even pity, that it feels for those on the periphery in the difficulties which they face.
For those on the edges, things look very different. To start with, the good intentions of central government generate only too often a good deal of apprehension. The pity and sympathy which central government may feel for those on the periphery is not always appreciated. It is something which only too often they feel they can do without. They feel that they do not need the massive help which central government offers.
In the particular context that we are dealing with here, those who undertake considerable duties in magistrates' courts— and it is a huge and complex task — are justified in thinking of themselves as doing their duty rather well; an I moreover, doing it very cheaply.
562
Considering the huge volume of business which goes through their courts, they also do it with remarkably little complaint.
We are all very familiar with the way in which almost any public activity generates and attracts a huge volume of complaint no matter how worthy the action. The point that I seek particularly to make is that efforts on the part of central government to tidy up or to produce economy — it is often called value for money— are looked at askance, and for very good reasons. First, there is the question: will the changes work at all? Secondly: might they not make things worse? And particularly, might they not end up by making things a good deal more expensive?
Those who perform these sorts of tasks, and who are proud and happy to do so, do not relish the prospect of being made to conform with Whitehall's patterns. I am sure that noble Lords would be united in believing that things can always be improved in any human organisation. The question that I seek to raise in this amendment is: are we quite sure that the new post of chief justices' clerk would improve matters? It is important to understand what would be his duties. Would they be only administrative; or would they be administrative and judicial? If, as I understand it, they are to be both, then a very, very clear line needs to be drawn between the occasions on which the chief justices' clerk will be acting judicially because he will then be acting as a justices' clerk and not in his new guise and the occasions when he will be acting purely administratively.
I know that it is my noble and learned friend's desire to produce a strong head of service. At this point, I should like to say how much I appreciated my noble and learned friend's courtesy when he took the opportunity the other day to explain to me his attitude to the amendments which stand in my name. At least it encouraged me to believe that they would be considered with the utmost care and that he would not be examining them from any rigid and immovable position. Anyone who occupies the post of a chief justices' clerk, if such a post were created, would find it very difficult to make clear to his colleagues and the profession— in other words, the justices' clerks— that he was there to help them and not compete with them, and that he was there to co-ordinate their activities and not to usurp their functions.
If that post is to be enshrined as such in the statute, it is important that there should be a very clear dividing line about the duties and powers. I believe that there are people now in post who are carrying out the kind of administrative duties which could easily be done by someone called a chief justices' clerk but which could, in my view, be done better— because there would be less danger of misunderstanding— if he were called a chief executive, as proposed in the amendment.
I am sure that my noble and learned friend sees in such an appointment a way of doing things better. I hope that he will understand— it must be quite difficult to do so from his position— that the real anxiety is about what his successors, and indeed other government departments, might be tempted to do. It is my fear that whereas he sees the appointment of chief justices' clerks as a

563
better way to do things, others may be tempted to see such appointments as a way to do very different things. I hope that he will be very careful of that.
I should like to make one further point. If there is no intention whatsoever for the chief justices' clerk to stray into the judicial and quasi-judicial area of the functions of a justices' clerk, why is the safety net of Clause 71 necessary? It seems to me that perhaps my noble and learned friend and those responsible for the Bill at least saw that there was a danger there and therefore inserted Clause 71 in the Bill.
Before I bring my remarks to an end, I should like to remind the Committee of some words spoken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whose name stands to this amendment, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill:
"It is absolutely fundamental that nobody providing legal directions or advice to a tribunal of fact … should be or appear to be susceptible to outside influences of any kind". — [Official Report, 18/1/94; col.476.]
I believe that those words are of absolutely basic importance and that we should keep them in mind. Our views and decisions on this matter should be governed by those sentiments.
In conclusion, let me plead with my noble and learned friend to overlook any inadequacies in my speech and to believe that what I seek today is prompted solely by a very great concern— which is widespread among a whole host of decent, intelligent people, who do some marvellous work— and real fears and suspicions that this particular step would be a mistaken one and would lead over the years to great damage to the profession and almost unending misunderstandings. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: At the outset, I should like to say how glad I was to note the announcement made on 2nd February by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in answer to criticisms made of some of the proposals in the Bill. I am also glad about the amendments that he has tabled, many of which the Committee has already accepted. In supporting the amendment, I hope that I shall be forgiven for returning to two matters that I raised in the debate at Second Reading and in respect of which my noble and learned friend has not — or, as I prefer to hope, has not yet— felt able to modify the Government's position.
We are considering Amendment No.170, but I should also like to touch on Amendment No.178, since the issues with which the two amendments deal are closely intertwined. Amendment No.170 proposes that the new chief justices' clerk should instead be a chief executive. At first blush that may seem merely a matter of nomenclature. In fact, it goes very much deeper. In order to strengthen and sharpen the administration of magistrates' courts, the Government propose to appoint a head of service, who will be the single head of all the paid staff of the committee, the committee's principal adviser and the person responsible for— one must use the jargon— the line management of all staff working in the magistrates' court.
564
I have no difficulty with that. Indeed, I welcome it. The efficient management of the court administration and the best use of resources will no doubt benefit from the proposal.
But the Government require that the new head of service has to be legally qualified. They require that he should have the same qualifications as a justices' clerk and be capable of acting as a justices' clerk; hence, the proposed name and why it has caused offence to many magistrates and is opposed by their association which, I am informed by its president, regards this clause as anathema (that was her word).
I see real dangers here. In a Written Answer in another place on 9th February the Parliamentary Secretary reiterated that the main purpose of instituting the new office of chief justices' clerk was to:
"provide clearer lines of accountability within the service". — [Official Report, Commons,9/2/94; col. 250.]
So be it. But accountability for what? For resources clearly yes, for the court and its staff yes; but for the judicial decisions and legal advice of justices' clerks categorically no.
I see no prospect that the essential distinction between administrative functions on the one hand, and judicial and legal functions on the other, can possibly be maintained if the new office-holder is both qualified and denominated as a justices' clerk. On the contrary, the proposal is bound to lead to the distinction becoming blurred, and to serving justices' clerks being made (whatever assurances my noble and learned friend gives now) to feel accountable to their "chief" for both sets of functions.
Moreover, there is no reason that I can see why the new head of service should be required to be legally qualified (though of course if a local committee wants him to be then that should be a matter for them). In my noble and learned friend's own department I know from personal experience that lawyers work for or under administrators without any difficulty and, in particular, without any impairment of "clear lines of accountability". The circuit administrator who heads the court service in the Crown Court on each circuit does not have to be legally qualified. Some are; some are not. But the important point is that a circuit administrator does not, and cannot, come into court and exercise judicial or advisory functions in the legal process. Nor does he train judicial officers.
We can see the risks very clearly if we look at subsection (3) of the new Section 24E which this clause will insert into the 1979 Act (and which is the object of Amendment No.178). This is the provision which seeks to establish the new "legal forum" by requiring the chief justices' clerk to,
"promote discussions relating to law, practice and procedure"
among the justices' clerks in their committee area. According to the Notes on Clauses my noble and learned friend has helpfully provided, its purpose will be to achieve greater consistency in the legal advice given to magistrates.
We had an example of such a forum recently when a number of employees of the magistrates' courts from Inner London attended a course, part of the funding for which was provided by my noble and learned friend. It

565
was called Managing Corporate Direction: A Course Designed for Managers of Magistrates' Courts. It ran on the 13th and 14th December at the Civil Service College, and was reported in the Observer on 23rd January by Mr. David Rose. He had received an account of the course from a participant, a copy of which I have seen. Copies of the course material were placed in the Library by my noble and learned friend last week in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill: they run to 105 pages and, remarkably you may think, mention the word "justice" only once.
I think it is worth my quoting briefly from the participant's account of the course. The quotation might amuse your Lordships if it were not so worrying. There was a discussion of "stakeholders" (these are, apparently, persons, groups or organisations that can place a claim on an organisation's attention, resources or output). Then,
"We were invited to decide who the magistrates' courts stakeholders were, and rate them in order of importance to us as members of the magistrates' courts service. To help us, the tutor said: 'Of course the Treasury will be very important, because that's your source of funding: and the media will be very important, because they affect your image. ' I asked whether defendants, on that analysis, were unimportant in that they did not pay us directly, they were not unionised and were not a single pressure group. `No', said the tutor. `You see, some might contact the media, and have an effect on your image. ' I asked if he was saying that defendants were important only in so far as they might do something like that: some of them and indeed some magistrates' courts staff might, I suggested, believe that defendants were intrinsically important to us simply by virtue of their and our respective roles. `No', the tutor explained, `you see, we're concerned with what's important to us; we're not concerned with moralising'."
Another session concentrated upon objectives. These, apparently, should be "achievement-orientated, specific and objective". One group, naively, as it turned out, suggested the word "justice" might merit a mention in them. It was hastily deleted by the course tutor since it was not "quantifiable".
This is not just nonsense; it is dangerous nonsense. Legislating to compel judicial officers to be indoctrinated with it would be indefensible. There is also the fear that chief justices' clerks will use the so-called "legal forum" as a means to influence the way justices' clerks advise the Bench and indeed the way they exercise their own judicial functions. Even if they do not deliberately exercise such influence, the justices' clerks under them may feel a pressure to win their chief's approval. There is therefore a risk that volume of throughput and economy may prevail over the requirements of justice.
Amendment Nc.178 (which has the support the Justices' Clerks' Society) will remove the "chief justices' clerk" from this forum, and leave it to justices' clerks themselves to assemble as they see fit, to compare notes and ensure appropriate consistency in the application of the law. Coupled with Amendment No.170, it will ensure that the management of the magistrates' courts is placed firmly in the hands of specially recruited managers, and that judicial functions remain where they belong, in the hands of judicial officers. I commend these amendments to the House.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: I speak with some pleasure and some trepidation in relation to Amendment No.170, in view of its distinguished sponsorship. Ever since proposals were floated about the creation of the post of chief justices' clerk and of an additional tier of management in the magisterial service, there has been a groundswell of opposition from magistrates in every part of the country. I should say straight away that this opposition is not based on any reluctance to accept an administrative head for magistrates' courts committees, though the very scrutiny pin-pointed the lack of management skills and effective managerial control which existed in far too many MCC areas.
That message was received and understood. MCCs immediately began to put their houses in order. Speaking from my own personal experience of one, very substantial strides were taken towards modern and entirely acceptable business practices; so that today the picture is entirely unrecognisable from what it was two or three years ago. Indeed, in the MCC on which I was privileged to sit until a year or so ago, there is already in-situ someone who amounts to a chief executive, handling, as he does, all administration in the MCC, but not entitled to sit in court as he is unqualified. The system works very well; so the principle is accepted, and willingly accepted.
What is not so readily accepted is the proposed title of head of administration within the MCC area. All the justices and justices' clerks I have spoken to— and they after all are the people who run the magisterial service — feel very strongly that such an appointment should not carry with it a legal title, and the modus operandi should not impinge in any way on the judicial role of justices' clerks. I accept the guarantees given that no central direction would be imposed on justices' clerks to affect the independence of the advice they give to their justices. But why should it be thought necessary to insist that someone who is to be head of administration in an MCC should also have a role to play as a justices' clerk and be able to take a court from time to time?
What dimension, apart from unnecessary interference in the running of courts, does it add to the role? As anyone working in the magisterial service as a justice knows, a justices' clerk has, to put it extremely mildly, a full-time job which is certainly not confined to sitting hours. Once the court rises there are many loose ends to be tied up, and he will already have had to have been in the court before the business of the day begins. Is it seriously proposed that the chief justices' clerk, in addition to his or her real duties, which must be comprehensive if efficient management is to have any meaning, will have the time to engage in such extra-mural activities? When one thinks, for example, of already combined areas like Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire, the idea that a future chief justices' clerk can sit regularly in courts around such a wide area is, quite frankly, unrealistic.
There is also the human factor. I believe that if a future chief justices' clerk has a judicial role or title it will affect, perhaps only subtlely but affect nevertheless, the working environment between that person and the

567
justices' clerks themselves within his area. Human nature being what it is, it may also tempt him or her into interfering in quasi judicial areas— like, for example, how fines are to be enforced or the granting of legal aid. Most important of all is the temptation it gives central government to use this new machinery to promulgate their views to benches up and down the country on various topical and often contentious matters.
Let two recent examples enforce this point: first, the encouragement from government to magistrates to fudge the unit fines system before Parliament had amended the Criminal Justice Act 1991 accordingly; secondly, the circular issued from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's Department in the matter of legal aid and the requirement to produce a certain number of successive pay slips in order to secure it— later withdrawn in the face of criticism. In a way the proposal to put justices' clerks onto a fixed term performance-related contract and this one were a double whammy, to use a political phrase much in vogue nowadays. We in the service are all very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for withdrawing the first. May I now beg him to let common sense prevail and remove the second?
I dare to say that it cannot be of great significance to him or his department if there is no fell intent, which I am sure there is not. But to those who work in the service I assure him that it is of great significance. What is in a name? That which we call a chief justices' clerk by any other name would smell as sweet.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to support this group of amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and others. It may be helpful to the Committee if I spell out what each of the amendments does as these things are sometimes not as clear as would be desirable.
Amendment No.170 is the simplest of the amendments. It replaces the phrase "chief justices' clerk" with "chief executive". I acknowledge straight away that, for consistency, it would be necessary if the amendment were carried, to do the same thing a dozen times later in the Bill. That might have to be done at Report stage. Amendment No.172 is an important amendment because this is the place where the Government's proposal in Clause 68 that the chief justices' clerk should be required to be qualified as a justices' clerk— in other words, to be legally qualified and prepared to act as a justices' clerk and treated as a justices' clerk for the purposes of the enactments— should be taken out and replaced, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggests, by a proposal that he should have what are called accounting functions.
Amendments Nos.176 and 177 are alternatives, Amendment No.177 being a fall-back to Amendment No.176. At the moment lines 8 to 11 on page 36 of the Bill—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The truth is that Amendment No.177 crept into the Marshalled List from I do not know where. It was purely repetitive, was not really in the alternative and has been withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that intervention. It simplifies matters. It would work as an alternative because it would leave the other phrase in.
Amendment No.178 has been spoken to very clearly. It concerns discussions about law practice and procedure among justices' clerks. The amendment provides that that would be the responsibility of the justices' clerks rather than the chief justices' clerk.
The point behind all these amendments and the reason why they hang together so well is a simple one. A magistrates' courts committee should, of course, have a head of paid service. As those who know them much better than I do have explained, that head of paid service should have administrative functions and should be responsible to the magistrates' courts committee rather than, in many respects, to the Lord Chancellor. An additional problem with Clause 68 is that, because of the mixture of responsibilities which is proposed for a chief justices' clerk, subsection (2) provides that the Lord Chancellor shall have an active part in the appointment of a chief justices' clerk. We agree that there should be a head of paid service, but he should be only a head of paid service and his role should not be mixed up with the role of the justices' clerk.
The justices' clerk is in a very peculiar position. His is the only legal advice available to magistrates. He has a very important constitutional role in that respect. He has additional administrative responsibilities within his own Bench, but his fundamental responsibility is to his own Bench and not to the administration of a wider area as the area of a magistrates' courts committee. Any legislation which confuses those two roles— the administrative role of the chief executive, as we would wish it to be, and the legal role with administrative support of the justices' clerk— is distorting the pattern of responsibility within the magistrates' courts service. That is the fundamental objection to the clause and I imagine that it is the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, proposes to object to the whole Clause.
I believe that this series of coherent amendments, which reflects, as has been clearly said, the views of the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks Society and all other organisations concerned in the administration of local justice, deserves careful consideration by the Committee before any broad-brush decision is taken about the clause as a whole. It deserves, I believe, the support of the Government because it raises no issue of principle to which the Government could object. It clarifies the roles of government, magistrates' courts committees, bench, administration and legal advice to the bench in a way that the clause at present does not. I support the amendments which have been so ably moved and I urge my noble friends to support them as well.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is one simple argument in favour of this amendment and it takes only a moment to express it. The expression "chief justices' clerk" will be widely misunderstood. Of course it will not be misunderstood by noble and learned Lords in this House but outside,"chief justices' clerk" carries with it a connection with the Lord Chief Justice. The words "chief justice" are mostly known to the public in the

569
context of Lord Chief Justice. There will be a suspicion and a complete misunderstanding that this official is some appendage to the Lord Chief Justice intruding into the lower levels of the legal system. It seems a pity that we should create this misunderstanding.
Quite a number of laymen have spoken to me and asked: Why are you dragging the Lord Chief Justice into this?". It is wholly unnecessary to use a misleading term which is not misleading to lawyers but to ordinary people, when there is a perfectly good alternative such as that proposed by this amendment which I very much hope that the Committee will accept.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: I support what the noble Lord has just said. In my speech I did not wish to mention matters which were personal to me. But they are not so much personal to me as personal to my office. I raised this point at Second Reading and I have raised it many times with my noble and learned friend who has said that he would be looking at it. He is still looking at it. That is another reason why this nomenclature needs to be changed. I wish to concentrate on the matter of substance rather than simply the title.
Earl Russell: The proposers of this amendment have made the Chamber echo with the noise of nails being remorselessly hit on the head. I cannot help having the feeling of a certain familiarity about this debate. When the Whitehall apparatus of accountability in its modern definition, and efficiency and so forth, is brought to bear on a public service, there is inevitably a certain sameness about the reactions. I could not help having memories earlier today when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was testifying his commitment to the independence of the service. For me that argument began when I was sitting here waiting to make my maiden speech and listening to him making the same argument about academic freedom. He made it in all sincerity. He was wrong. He is making it in all sincerity now. I believe that he is again wrong because the whole of this apparatus of accountability, the demand for everything to be done for the lowest possible cost, inevitably conflicts with the autonomy of professional judgment. I have never heard that more clearly illustrated than it was in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
I understand that costs matter, but in any public service the object of the exercise must have primacy. Here the object of the exercise must be justice, which means that justice must have priority over the pursuit of efficiency. That is why the point made in Amendment No.170 is absolutely central.
Perhaps I may continue the academic analogy. We have here something like a proposal to give the headship of department to the bursar. His judgment in matters of research might not be one in which everybody would always have confidence. So the point of the proposal is the same as the restriction we have in my profession by the distinction of category between academic and administrative staff. That is a very helpful decision. The division of responsibility works. As I understand it, it is the same division of responsibility which is proposed in Amendment No.170.
570
In this pursuit of accountability, which is growing all the time, we have a juggernaut. Juggernauts too must be held accountable. The place where they are properly held accountable is in this House. If the noble and learned Lord has listened to the debate with his usual care, that may not be necessary, but if it is, I hope that it will be done.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, to agree. I believe that is implicit also in what my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said; namely, that we are dealing here with a person who is to be appointed as head of service within the area of a magistrates' courts committee. I am grateful to receive the nods for that. That is essentially what I believe we require— accountable as the principal officer of the magistrates' courts committee.
The whole function— indeed the only function— of the magistrates' courts and the magistrates' courts committee is the dispensation of justice at that level within their area. Is it not surprising therefore that the Committee should face an amendment which takes the word "justice" out of the title of the head of service? As my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor pointed out in referring to a course— I shall come back to that in more detail in a moment— the reference to "justice" was thought not to be appropriate there. He criticised the course on that basis.
That is not a very satisfactory basis on which to ask for the word "justice" to be taken out of the title of the head of service. My noble and learned friend referred to the Magistrates' Association. I believe that he was referring to the chairman because the Lord Chancellor is ex-officio the president of the association and so far I have been continued in that office.
This is a difficult matter. Inner London, which does 10 per cent. of all the magistrates' courts work in England and Wales, has a principal justices' clerk who is head of service. There is a justices' clerk in each of the petty sessional divisions within the area. That is a tried and tested system which I believe to be good.
We did not reach this position without consultation. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has pointed out, we have had quite a lot of consultation. I wish to quote from a response sent to the magistrates' courts division of my department by Mr Cramp, the honorary secretary of the Justices' Clerks' Society on 20th May 1993. Paragraph 10 is quite important:
"Paragraph 10 sets out the Lord Chancellor's Department's view that the chief justices' clerk because he needs, among other qualities, to have 'credibility in the legal area in order to exercise effective leadership', should have the same legal qualifications as a justices' clerk without necessarily having previously held office as a justices' clerk. We cannot agree with that contention. The appropriate job title, relationship between head of service and justices' clerks, the perception of the standing of the head of service by other agencies in the justice system and his ability to be effective within the magistrates' courts service or outside it, will be determined by the qualifications required for appointment. We question whether someone without experience as a justices' clerk would have an in-depth feel for the workings of the system. The unique and sometimes apparently paradoxical role of a justices' clerk needs a degree of insight and sensitivity not always obvious to the outsider, even if a lawyer.

571
"In addition to being legally qualified as a barrister or solicitor (assuming also that the postholder would be required to have demonstrated management competencies) we suggest that for a person to become a chief justices' clerk he must be eligible for appointment as a justices' clerk under the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, Section 26 and be the current holder of such a post.
"It is noted that although the consultative document does not specifically ask for comments on the title given to the head of service, consultees have been invited to comment.
"The Society is of the view that the head of service should be qualified under Section 26 of the Justice of the Peace Act 1979 and also hold or have formerly held the office of justices' clerk.
"Whilst the job description of the chief justices' clerk requires the execution of mainly administrative functions, it is in our view imperative that the chief justices' clerk possesses a thorough understanding of the role and duties of justices' clerks' and relationships between justices' clerks and magistrates.
"Inter-agency relations locally and regionally would be strengthened if the head of service is perceived by those within and outside the service to possess the qualities, qualifications, experience and competencies as those sought and demanded of justices' clerks. The Society is of the opinion therefore that the title to be given to the head of service should be 'Chief Justices' Clerk'".
That is the opinion as expressed on 20th May 1993 on behalf of the Justices' Clerks' Society. I am well aware that since then the society has taken different views of the matter, but that document contains a cogent account of the philosophy which lies behind the proposals in this Bill.
The society also dealt with a matter that was referred to by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in connection with one of the later amendments under the title "Legal Forum". I should say immediately that the course to which my noble and learned friend referred was not a legal forum in the sense in which that is explained by the justices' clerks.
I quote again from the society's document in response to the consultation. This may provide some explanation of why the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, thinks that we did not listen. The following was among the material that was submitted to us as part of the consultation process:
"Justices' clerks and court clerks must be free when sitting in court to give such legal advice as they believe appropriate to assist the magistrates in carrying out their judicial functions. However, the desirability of achieving consistency of advice on a particular point throughout a magistrates' courts committee area is also a relevant consideration. The concept of a legal forum as outlined in the consultative document is supported by the Society. However, it has to be recognised that many points will continue to arise in court which will require an immediate decision. It would be most unfortunate if there was an unnecessary over-use of the legal forum resulting in delays in court following adjournments of hearings pending discussions at the next meeting of the group.
"The legal forum, we have no doubt, provides the best way forward in this difficult area and, in doing so, uses the knowledge and experience of all justices' clerks within the committee's area as a way of improving the legal support given to benches. It is clearly better to have a common approach to legal problems, wherever possible, within any given area, but it is important to stress that if a justices' clerk has a firm view on any point which arises, even if he is completely at variance with his colleagues, then he should be free to give that advice to his magistrates. Justices' clerks are independent practitioners and the legal forum would give an opportunity to discuss and persuade, allowing those present to reflect on the views of colleagues and change their minds, if necessary. Alternatively, they might be able, with better arguments and research, to persuade their colleagues to change their minds subsequently. Whatever the outcome, justices' clerks must feel free to give the advice which they believe to be correct. Until a categorical answer is given in the High Court to issues where there is more than one interpretation,
572
then each such interpretation, assuming it to be one of merit, will remain valid. This, in our view, is a fundamental constitutional point which needs to be emphasised".
Clause 71 does just that. It re-emphasises that point.
That is the origin of the legal forum. It came from the justices' clerks. It is not usual to show documents from the Dispatch Box, but any noble Lord who wishes to see that diagram of the legal forum prepared by the Justices' Clerks' Society is very welcome to do so. I shall not attempt to read the diagram, but the narrative states:
'The principle strands are as follows: the chief justices' clerk would have a duty to convene the legal forum at regular intervals; the justices' clerks in the area would be required by their contracts of employment to attend meetings, to participate in discussion and to exchange relevant information and views; there would be scope for the input of other information as indicated in the diagram — including any advice from the Magistrates' Courts Division of the Lord Chancellor's Department; the chief justices' clerk would facilitate discussion; a main aim of the forum would be to agree relevant matters wherever possible and to resolve, or limit, any remaining differences of opinion; others involved in the justice process could be informed of the stance taken and communication on a wider basis could be considered when appropriate; the forum would be expected to consider known developments in other areas.
"Such a mechanism would reduce to a minimum the situations in which conflicting views prevail in an area. Ultimately, the existence of similar discussions across the country would serve to narrow the scope for inconsistency as between areas".
That is the origin of the legal forum, with the suggestion that the chief justices' clerk should convene it.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about the course that was attended by people from inner London. First, it was at the request of inner London that the Lord Chancellor's Department provided some— not all— of the funding for the course. Secondly, the course was provided by the Civil Service College. My noble and learned friend, with his usual courtesy, kindly gave me sight of the account of the matter that was given to him. The account that was given to him by a member of the course does not square completely— as perhaps one might expect— with the recollections of some others who were there, particularly the course tutor. I do not think, however, that we need to go into that.
I agree with the fundamental point which lay behind the reference to the course: that if one is talking about management in the justice system, one needs to have a very clear idea about justice and the need for justice, and that management should be subservient to justice. The whole purpose of the magistrates' courts service is to provide justice. The whole purpose of all those who serve in it, magistrates and staff, is to provide justice.
The various organisations in the magistrates' courts service responded in November 1993 to the Government's White Paper of February 1992. That response was agreed by the Central Council of the Magistrates' Courts Committees, the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Association of Magisterial Officers and the Standing Conference of Clerks to Magistrates' Courts Committees. The whole document is available, but I should like to quote from Appendix 1 which contains a description of the chief executive's job— by this time the justices' clerks were going for a chief executive. The section gives an "illustrative job description" for the chief executive and reads:
'The chief executive will be responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the magistrates' courts committee in

573
accordance with its policies and requirements. He will lead the management team, be the committee's principal adviser and convene the legal forum and within it facilitate discussion between the justices' clerks".
shall not read it all because your Lordships will become weary if I try to do so, but among other things the chief executive has to represent the MCC with the officers of other agencies. A very important function, deriving from the responsibility of the magistrates' courts committee, is set out in paragraph 9. It is, in consultation with magistrates,
"to prepare and implement an effective policy for the training and development of magistrates".
So the head of service is to have the responsibility of preparing in consultation with magistrates and implementing an effective policy for the training and development of magistrates. I would have thought that it was a retrograde step to have a person in that position who was not qualified legally in that connection.
That is the proposal for an alternative framework agreed by all the communities in the service. The proposals that I have made in the Bill are entirely in accordance with the arrangements which presently exist in Inner London but the title of the office in Inner London is "principal justices' clerk". On a number of occasions my noble and learned friend has drawn to my attention the difficulty about the title and I am perfectly willing to change it. I believe that it would be a retrograde step to change it in such a way as to take "justice" out of it. I also believe that it would be a mistake to change it in such a way as not to indicate that the person in question is a principal. The reason that I have not changed it up-to-date— apart from wishing first to have these discussions in your Lordships' Committee— is that the title was supported on consultation by the Justices' Clerks' Society, which is the professional body best qualified to judge the matter.
My noble friend Lord Peyton moved Amendment No.172. I find that a difficult amendment to take by itself because one of the important functions of justices' clerks which can yield economies on a larger unit is the amalgamation of fine accounting. Under the present statutes, fine accounting requires to be under the control of a justices' clerk. He must certify that the fine has been imposed and collect the money. If sufficient money is not paid on instalment, he must initiate the necessary action to enforce it. I do not believe that accounting would cover all that. Therefore one of the important points of the possible economies is left out.
I wish to say a few words about Inner London where the proposal has teen tested out for a long time. The Inner London service includes approximately 800 lay magistrates in addition to approximately 50 stipen-diaries. In Inner London there is already a single head of service and has been for many years. The principal chief clerk, who is legally qualified and has all the powers of a justices' clerk, is the head of service in the Inner London area. The general style of this post is similar to that which I envisage the chief justices' clerk having with his justices' clerks. None of the difficulties which have been anticipated in this debate have come about. The present principal chief clerk in Inner London, Ian Fowler, who is a very experienced principal chief clerk and is about to retire, has written to me. He stated:
574
"I provide a central liaison point for all the other agencies with which the Service must co-operate— the Lord Chancellor's Department, Home Office, Police, Crown Prosecution Service, other prosecutors, local authorities, the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, which acts as the local law society, and the Probation Service. Those agencies expect my response to be that of a lawyer.
I either chair or am a member of a number of internal committees on which chief clerks and other members of staff serve. An appreciation of the legal implications of the matters discussed is important, and I consider my contribution in achieving decisions has depended on my ability to rake part fully in discussion of points of law.
I do not believe it would be possible for a chief executive to provide adequate leadership to a group of clerks and to secure their full co-operation in achieving best practice throughout the area.
I need to initiate and chair meetings with other agencies, including a User Group for the Service and am expected to be able to speak on behalf of my colleagues as a lawyer.
I need to understand the limits of my authority with regard to my colleagues' judicial responsibilities, but not to be intimidated"—
that is an important proviso—
"into allowing that limitation to extend beyond proper limits.
I expect to be consulted about problems, to be approached for advice, to give support and to take part in discussion of legal questions."
Those are the main issues that I wish to put before the Committee.
As regards the precise title, I am willing to consider what might be appropriate. I believe that my noble and learned friend's clerk would normally describe himself in correspondence as "Clerk to the Lord Chief Justice". However, I understand that there might be room for anxiety about that.
In view of what I have heard today about centralising, it may be useful to remind the Committee of a passage from Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices of England. He considers that the Chief Justice has descended from the office of Chief Justiciary, introduced into England by William the Conqueror from Normandy, where it had long existed. Campbell comments:
"The functions of such an officer would have ill-accorded with the notions of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors who had a great antipathy to centralisation and prided themselves upon enjoying the rights and advantages of self government".
The appreciation of centralisation changes over the years.
The office of the Lord Chief Justice shows that where it is a matter of judicial independence, the fact that the style "chief' is associated with one of the judges does not mean anything against the judicial independence of his brethren; the Lord Chief Justice is chief justice among justices. The title of "Chief Justice" has a long history."Chief Baron" was another title in the Exchequer area. All the barons were judicially independent one of the other. The fact that somebody is chief does not necessarily mean that that person has a right in all matters to overrule his brethren. I am sure that in the judicial field all understand well that the chief justice is not entitled to give directions in judicial matters to his brethren except in so far as he may from time to time sit in a court which is superior to them, and by virtue of whose decisions they may be bound.
As regards the legal forum, I liken it to the situation which exists in court with a number of members. In this Chamber the normal complement of the Appellate Committee is five; there are five independent Members

575
of the committee. From time to time, I have the privilege of chairing that committee. After the conclusion of that hearing, we hold a legal forum in which the individual members express their views. We have a discussion as a result of which the views of some may change or the views of all may remain the same. There is nothing improper about that; it is a perfectly proper exercise of judicial independence. On the whole, if we can reach agreement, we do so. Dissents are not uncommon, and I am sure that in the legal form convened by the principal officer of the magistrates' courts committee dissents will also take place from time to time. That will in no way impede the effectiveness of the forum.
As regards the title, I am content to take an alternative. I should prefer a title which retained a reference to justice; but "chief' can give way to "principal" or anything else. The local officers of most locally managed organisations are described as "chief officers" and that is one of the reasons for choosing this title.
As regards the nature of the qualifications and so on of the head of service, I consider that the principles which the Bill enshrines are the correct principles and are likely to give the best value and most effective support to what is essentially a justice system. I invite my noble friend Lord Peyton to allow me to consider the question of the title. I should be glad to know what other Members of the Committee wish in that regard. I do not want to accept the amendment in its present form because I do not believe that "chief executive" is the best title in this situation. However, I am open to suggestions. At present, I believe the best title to be "principal justices' clerk", although that is not such a common title in local organisations.
My objection to the other amendments is more fundamental but I have sought to set out my reasons for not wishing to accept them.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: At this hour I am sure that no one would wish me to add more than the very minimum to the debate, and I do not propose to do so.
The remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seem to have been addressed largely to the question of whether the head of service should be legally qualified and have had experience as a justices' clerk. The furthest that the Justices' Clerks' Society ever went in May of last year was to say that "he should hold or have held". But that is not what the debate has been about.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it quite clear at the beginning— and nobody has contradicted him— that we are talking about the division of functions and the independence of the executive side from the judicial side. That is what this is all about. The Lord Chief Justice made it clear that that is what it is all about.
The answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to that is that it works all right in Inner London. I do not doubt that it does; it has worked for many years in Inner London. But that is the point. Some years ago, those problems did not arise because people accepted that judicial independence was a reality and
576
that no one would attack it. I regret to say that, for one reason or another, those days are gone. Nowadays we are forced into the position where, rightly or wrongly, we feel that we must defend judicial independence at every stage. This is one of those crucial stages at which, as the Lord Chief Justice has so clearly demonstrated, a stand must be taken. It is not for me to say whether that should happen at this stage or another stage of the Bill but a stand must be taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I regret having to come back on this matter because I have already spoken in the debate. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made a splendid debating speech, it did not address the issues covered by the amendments.
First, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made what is purely a debating point; namely, that the word "justice" does not appear in the title proposed. He then said that it appears in Inner London. In Inner London the title is the principal chief clerk and not the principal justices' clerk. Therefore, that part of the case does not stand up. Also, the relationship between clerks and the principal clerk in Inner London is different because a large part of the Inner London magistracy is made up of stipendiary magistrates. The point that we have made about local magistrates' Benches and local magistrates' courts committees is that they are made up of lay magistrates. The role of the justices' clerk is to provide legal advice, the only legal advice which is available to them. That must be kept separate from the administrative position of what the amendments call the "chief executive".
I am not wedded to the title "chief executive". Perhaps it would be better to call him the "principal chief clerk". I am sure that we could reach agreement about that. However, the important point is to record that the administrative function is different from the legal advice.
Quite frankly, to quote the evidence given by the Justices' Clerks' Society in May 1993, when the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that that is not now its opinion, is to make not much more than a debating point. After all, in May 1993 the Government supported the idea of an elected police authority for the Metropolitan Police in Greater London. They changed their minds and they have the right to do so. Nobody objects to that. The Lord Chancellor was at the very well attended special general meeting of the Magistrates' Association on 9th October last year. Therefore, he knows that the magistrates, and not just their leadership, objected en masse to the provisions of the Bill. It is now the view of the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Magistrates' Association and all the other organisations with "M" and "C" in their titles— and I shall never learn to remember them — that the separation between administration and legal advice to magistrates is essential to the effective and just working of the local magistrates' system. What was said in May 1993 and what happens in Inner London do not fundamentally affect the issue.
Lord Wigoder: The noble Lord' referred to the observations of the Justices' Clerks' Society as being a mere debating point on the part of the noble and learned

577
Lord. It is not even that. When the noble and learned Lord considers afresh, as I hope he will do, the title and qualifications required for the person whom everybody agrees is to be the administrative head of the service, will he bear in mind that, though the Justices' Clerks' Society, which has made many extremely helpful observations in tie course of the progress of the Bill, gave the initial reaction on which the noble and learned Lord is seeking to rely so heavily, it is common practice for every trade union, on hearing that a number of new and important senior jobs are to be created, to say that those must be reserved to the qualified members of the union?
'The Lord Chancellor: I should hesitate to attribute that motive to the particular observations which the Justices' Clerks' Society was kind enough to give me, because in the passages which I read it was demonstrated that it was not merely the society's view but the reasons for that view that I was putting before the Committee.
Lord Ackner: On the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as regards the name, the name consistent with his philosophy should always have been justices' chief clerk. I cannot understand how chief justices' clerk ever came into it. From the noble and learned Lord's standpoint, the name was justices' chief clerk. That includes the words "justice","chief' and "clerk".
The issue here is quite simple. The title should be justices' chief executive; that is the point which we are all debating. It s that point on which we should concentrate.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: With respect to my noble and learned friend, I feel that he has, in what was described as an excellent speech, bypassed all the real issues in the debate. It is right to say that his speech was long on citation arid very short on answers to the points raised. I am sure that it is well known to my noble and learned friend, as it is to any other lawyer, that when one is in difficulties in court, one cites a few authorities.
The citation which my noble and learned friend relied upon and put at the forefront of his argument has now passed because the Justices' Clerks' Society has thought again and has seen the significance of what is intended in the Bill and what may result from it. That society has shown rather more flexibility than has my noble and learned friend until now.
The question is whether the individual, whatever he be called and whether or not he is legally qualified— I am not against him being legally qualified and, if a magistrates' committee wishes him to be legally qualified, so be it— should deal with the administration and should not be erring and veering into the court and what goes on in the court.
My noble and learned friend referred to the forum as though I and those who are with me object to there being a forum from time. o time; not at all. As I said, the effect of Amendment No.178 would be to allow a forum to take place with justices' clerks meeting and discussing common issues and reaching some common conclusions. There is no reason Why they should not be
578
convened by the chief executive, but what I object to is the idea that they will be there with the headmaster, and that the headmaster may indicate to them that the throughput in their courts has been rather too thin, that they have been granting too much legal aid and that they ought to be granting adjournments less frequently and so on. Or, if he does not say that frankly and overtly, they may well get the feeling that they had better cut down the number of adjournments and the legal aid and they had better step up the throughput to achieve favour with the chief. He ought not to have any part in any of that. That is the real issue here. I hope that the Committee will see it as being not only fundamental to this Bill, but fundamental to the administration of justice in this country.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: We are indebted to my noble and learned friend for having given us much material on which to ponder and reflect. He has made much of Mr. Cramp's earlier opinions. Happily I am in the privileged position of being able to give the latest version of Mr. Cramp's opinions as I spent some time with him today. He comes from Yeovil and I myself come from that neighbourhood. As I was anxious to avoid mistakes and to avoid outraging a profession which felt itself to be in some jeopardy, I went so far as to prepare the remarks which I intended to make today in this Chamber and then to repeat them to Mr. Cramp. I asked him clearly whether he had any reservations or difference of opinion with what I proposed to say. He made it absolutely clear that he had none.
It is clear to me that Mr. Cramp has changed his views, as have the members of his association. It is possible— it seems to me at least very likely— that that change of views has been brought about because of an increasing awareness of the dangers of what is now proposed. As regards the title, my noble and learned friend has, I believe, said sufficient for me to say that I would not wish to vote on this particular amendment. But perhaps I could now take him to Amendment No.178 which is grouped with this one. It seeks to amend the proposed new subsection 24E(3) on page 36 of the Bill which states:
"It shall be the duty of the chief justices' clerk to promote discussions relating to law, practice and procedure among the justices' clerks for petty sessions areas within the area of the committee".
My amendment seeks to remove the words "chief justices' clerk" and insert "justices' clerks". My noble and learned friend made it very clear that he had a more fundamental objection to the other amendments which stand in my name and that of others.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to assure me of a willingness to look at not only the principal Amendment No.170, but at all the others grouped with it because they seem to be very much part of a pattern. I apologise to the Committee if I erred in not dealing in detail and separately with each one of those amendments in my opening remarks. I take all of those amendments very seriously and I would be deeply disappointed if my noble and learned friend did not feel able to say that these are serious matters. Without the

579
amendments which I am suggesting, the proposed appointment of a chief justices' clerk, or whatever one may call him, will be in danger of being given an ascendency in matters legal which he ought not to have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies, I wish to commend to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, his own amendment, Amendment No.172. He appeared to be thinking that because the name is not absolutely critical and because the Government have indicated that they will think again about the name, we could skip to Amendment No.178. I do not believe that that is the case. Amendment No.172 would remove the provisions as regards the chief justices' clerk being qualified to exercise, and being capable of exercising the functions of justices' clerks. The division between the administration, whatever the head of paid service is called, and the legal advice given to lay magistrates by the justices' clerks is absolutely critical to the argument. I am sorry to say this again but it has to be said as many times as is necessary. I hope that if the noble Lord abandons Amendment No.170, he will not abandon Amendment No.172.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I never said that I was going to abandon it. I was going to put Amendment No.170 into "dry dock", if that is the proper place for such an amendment. As regards Amendment No.172, I merely picked out Amendment No.178 because it had been particularly referred to, I believe by my noble and learned friend. I am now asking him to reflect on all the amendments which are grouped with Amendment No.170 and to give them serious thought before the next stage of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope I have made it clear that I consider this to be an extremely important issue on which, at the very least, the professional association of justices' clerks has changed its mind, having given reasons for thinking that what we wanted to do originally was right. I thought it right to refer to that, particularly having regard to the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has said that our consultation documents were part of a public relations exercise and did not take note of what was said. It is true that some of those consulted have changed their minds but I do not think that can necessarily be held against the consultation process.
These are all issues of great importance. I must point out to the Committee, in case I have not done it effectively already, that Inner London is a place where these particular functions are vested in the one person. There are other places where the clerk, or the head of service, is a justices' clerk as well as being clerk to the local magistrates' courts committee. The type of formulation which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has proposed will certainly require consideration of whether these arrangements, which have stood quite good test in many places, will work. I believe, for example, that on the Isle of Wight the justices' clerk is also the clerk to the magistrates' courts committee and that works perfectly well.
580
However, I shall certainly consider carefully all that has been said. I believe that this issue merits going over more than once. Some Members of the Committee were kind enough to describe my speech as a debating speech. I regard these matters as of vital importance. No doubt debate plays some part in obtaining the correct answer, but I believe that consideration of what is said also plays some part in that process. I am glad to seek to contribute to that process.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I find myself in a difficult position. I do not want to divide the Committee at this stage and to endanger the consensus on this Bill which, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, it behoves us all to seek. I do not want to go back on that, but I hope that my noble and learned friend will understand beyond peradventure that if I withdraw these amendments we would expect some movement towards consensus on his part before Report stage. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend feels able to add anything that would be of comfort to me.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall consider carefully all that has been said. I have already indicated very plainly that I can see a means of movement on the title of the post. It may be that further movement is possible. That is the purpose of the further consideration. I should love to reach a consensus on this matter. If one group can change its mind so can others.
I am extremely anxious that the head of service should be somebody who has authority in the service and has authority to represent the service outside it. It may be that all the aims that have been expressed can be achieved together. If so, the consensus that my noble friend seeks will be achieved.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to intervene. Can my noble friend say that whatever the official is called he will have no judicial or quasi-judicial function?
The Lord Chancellor: I have just pointed out that there are some circumstances in which he already has such a function. I cannot say what my noble friend wants me to say. But I shall certainly consider the extent to which those should be matters for the local committee. In Inner London the principal chief clerk is also a clerk in each of the petty sessional divisions within Inner London. That is a combination of administrative and advisory functions to justices. Therefore, I do not think it right to go to the length of saying that I would want to cut that link in Inner London, for example. However, I shall certainly consider with those who wish to discuss the matter with me what other steps might be taken. I believe that the model which exists in Inner London is a very effective model for the management of a system which includes justice.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like merely to add that I believe that in other parts of the country there are people who discharge these functions and who are adequately described as chief executives.
The Lord Chancellor: That is also the case.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that I have the sympathy of the Committee in what I find a very difficult decision. Having in mind what I said at the start, that it is incumbent upon us all to seek consensus on the Bill before it leaves this Chamber, I do not feel inclined to press all or any of the amendments to a Division tonight. I say that on the very clear understanding that my noble and learned friend will undertake not only to reflect on the matter, but to listen very carefully to further representations on the subject from those of us on the Benches behind him who feel very strongly about it and consider that we are in danger of making a serious error. I hope that in particular he will listen to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who has spoken with such cogency and experience that it is almost impertinent for me to add anything to what he had to say.
Viscount Whitelaw: I hope that we shall not press the matter to a Division tonight because that does not seem at all fair to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As I understand my noble and learned friend's position, as a simple non-lawyer who has listened to a great many lawyers for a long time, with much pleasure for once, surely it is right that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be able to consider all the available alternatives. If by Report stage he has not found a solution which is satisfactory to noble Lords, the answer is perfectly simple. Noble Lords may put down whatever amendments they wish and vote against the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because he has failed to carry out what he has been asked to do by my noble friend Lord Peyton. Surely that is better than trying to settle the matter tonight. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be given the opportunity to find a solution. I believe that that can be achieved.
I should love to see a different word, but I am the last person to know what it should be. I am sure that someone else will find a much better word and we shall all be happy when it comes to Report stage.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I apologise to the Committee. I thought that I had made it clear that I wished to withdraw Amendment No.170 and would not move the other amendments on the understanding that my noble and learned friend would reconsider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if' the consideration of the Bill is resumed at 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
7.45 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved the amendment:
582
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("Act)") to ("for") in line 42
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. with this amendment we return to a matter which has been debated at both the previous stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House and which has received a consider-able measure of agreement, although different words have been used on different sides of the House to express that agreement.
The issue is whether, in dealing with transitional relief for non-domestic rates such that the pool of money derived for local authorities is less than it would otherwise have been had transitional relief not been applied, the Government shall be bound to make up the shortfall or shall merely have a power to make up the shortfall.
Under the present transitional arrangements the Government are bound to make up that shortfall. In this Bill the Government seek to reduce their obligation to a matter of their own discretion. With the amendment I seek to return to the provision which currently applies; namely, that the Government shall be bound to make up the shortfall.
I said at the previous stage that I did not have lengthy arguments to put before your Lordships because I did not feel that it was my duty to do so. I felt that it was the Government's duty to justify why they seek to make a change.
The Minister has given assurances— indeed, I would go so far as to describe them as undertalungs— that if there is a shortfall in the future the Government will make it up. As I have made clear before and I gladly do so again, I do not seek to impugn the integrity of the Minister in debating the matter on yet another occasion. However, assurances, undertakings or commitments given to your Lordships, while important and valuable, do not have the force of statutes.
In giving his assurances the Minister has indicated that he agrees with us on the importance of the matter. If that were not so the Government would not have given undertakings. He has also indicated sympathy for this approach in dealing with the matter. In introducing the matter yet again at this last stage of the Bill, I hope to give the Minister the means of putting, his good intentions into practice and putting the provision on the face of the Bill. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Bill should make no mention of the matter because there is no need to say anything about it as the current legislation says all that is needed.
I understand the anxiety to complete this piece of legislation in order that local authorities can send out their bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, whose name is also to the amendment, will have something to say about that and how the progress of the Bill might be assisted.
In putting forward the amendment, I make it clear that there is no wish to make life more difficult for the local authorities by adding to the time pressures on them; quite the contrary. We seek to make fife clearer for the local authorities.
There need be no long justification' for the argument from our side of the Chamber. The Government have made out no case other than that the provision is not

583
necessary. They have not made a good case for a change in the law. They have left us with assurances which we do not wish to doubt. However, the longer the debate goes on the more concerned one is as to the weight of assurances when the Minister is no longer a Minister in the department, and life and people have moved on. We might then be dealing with a government who may not regard themselves as quite so close to the assurances given over the past few days. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are happy to be conjoined in the amendment. We spoke to similar amendments at Committee and Report stage. We warmly support the amendment and hope that even at this late stage we may persuade the Minister of its reasonableness.
The Minister agrees that government in practice will deliver the amendment: that in practice it is not the business community or the local authorities but the Government who will guarantee to provide any necessary deficit funding incurred in any subsequent transitional relief arrangements. The Minister promised that at Second Reading. He promised it at Committee. He repeated the promise at Report stage. It is an unambiguous promise. Therefore there is no difference between the Opposition Benches, the Minister, business communities or local authorities on the need for that undertaking. That undertaking has been given without qualification."It will happen", the Minister says,"if necessary".
However, our problem is this: will it? Why have we been pressing so hard at yet a third round of amendment? The reason is that the refusal to have the provision on the face of the Bill is an innovation. In the past the provision was on the face of the Bill and therefore local authorities' positions were protected. The Minister is no longer offering to keep the provision on the face of the Bill. Despite the Minister's statement, good faith and integrity, there must be a worry that he does not intend to bind his successors by law, as his words suggest.
Why therefore are we pressing the amendment? First, it is because we are dealing with primary legislation. It is the job of this House to be concerned not with comments and undertakings but with Bills and the law. It is therefore important that when local authorities, business communities, citizen's watch groups and the like read the Act they know what they are entitled to. They do not have to go through well thumbed back copies of Hansard on an obscure dinner hour break debate to understand the Minister's intentions. The laws of the land should be simple, clear, accessible and unambiguous, and should enshrine ministerial intention. If he has that ministerial intention, and if it is simple to put that on the face of the Bill, a priori it should be there. Only if there are good practical reasons for the provision not to be on the face of the Bill could we support the Minister on that argument.
Secondly, primary legislation does not involve just an undertaking or a commitment. It is binding. A verbal undertaking will bind this Minister in honour; I am sure that he will honour it. It cannot bind his successors. How
584
will a local authority enforce the Minister's undertaking against a successor Minister? He must tell us how they would do that if his undertaking is to be more than words. How can it be enforced if the provision is not on the face of the Bill?
The Minister will say that his statement is good enough. If that were so, it would make redundant half the legislation in the country. I am quite sure that at present the Home Secretary would like to say,"My statement is good enough. We don't need it on the face of the Bill. Go away with your amendments". With regard to the railway Bills, the Transport Secretary might like to have said,"I have given my undertaking. That is good enough". With regard to the DTI and pension schemes, the Minister might like to have said to the miners,"My undertaking is good enough. It does not need to be on the face of the Bill". While respecting the integrity of Ministers who make that point, your Lordships have never envisaged such a statement as a substitute, where practicable, for a commitment and undertaking within the Bill.
Finally, is it practicable, even at this stage, to have the provision on the face of the Bill? It was suggested by the Minister that there might be problems for local authorities because an amended Bill would need to be further discussed in another place, and that would produce delay; it would affect local authorities' ability to get their bills out on time. In good faith we have done our best to explore that problem. So far as concerns another place, my understanding is that both the responsible shadow Ministers and the usual channels would use their best offices to expedite such an amended Bill. Therefore there need be no delay in another place other than a few days. If the Minister were minded to accept the amendment, such a clause would not make a penny difference to any bills which local authorities sent out. I understand the Minister's worry if it did; it does not. The clause merely gives an undertaking that in future the Government will pick up deficit funding. The provision makes not a penny difference to the bills that local authorities will send out. The authorities know now what they will bill their businesses for. They will still send the bills out by computerised systems and the like. There need be no problem.
With regard to local government, we have often not handled our rates debates until the first week in March. Authorities have a fortnight to send out the bills; and the rates take effect from the first week in April. There need be no problem. We can easily and confidently meet the same timetable, given the assurances that we have had that the matter will be expedited in another place to people's best endeavours.
Therefore both sides agree on the principle. We on this side believe that we have helped to sort out the practical problems. If the Minister cannot tell us how his undertaking given in honour can subsequently be enforced by a local authority, and if he accepts that that could present a problem in future— I believe that he must since it has presented a problem in the past— can we hope that the Minister will now support the amendment?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I suspect that both the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the, noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will expect me to be fairly brief on the issue because we have gone through it quite a few times before. As I explained at Report, we are fully aware of the importance which local authorities attach to ensuring that the pool is not depleted. That is why my honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Planning gave the unequivocal assurance that we would always top up the pool if any future transitional arrangements left it short. I have repeated that commitment over and over again in your Lordships' House. I have also explained why we do not wish to delay the Bill unnecessarily. I believe that because of the commitments we have given any change to the Bill is unnecessary.
I say again, we believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet the noble Baronesses' concerns. Therefore those are the arguments that I use for not accepting the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he recognise that he advances a rather novel constitutional doctrine? It runs as follows. Parliament decides this and thus. What Parliament decides is in an Act of Parliament which receives the Roy al Assent. That is perfectly clear. In the case that we are considering, there is a permissive power for the Secretary of State to do certain things, amending, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly said, previous legislation which obliged the Secretary of State to do certain things.
In addition, the noble Earl is now saying that we have a new constitutional procedure whereby ministerial assurances, of whatever nature they may be and with whatever conviction and vigour they may be made, are also part of the law of the land. Parliament no longer decides what is the law of the land; it is Ministers who will say: "Parliament may have decided that the Act should be permissive; nevertheless, in giving these categorical assurances, Ministers bind future Ministers who will bind other future Ministers from here to the hereafter". That will presumably be defensible in the courts because it is what the noble Earl intends. Therefore, local authorities can be satisfied. I should be grateful if, before he sits down, the noble Earl could expand on the constitutional problems that he raises this evening.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, tries to draw me into discussion or argument on what he called a "novel constitutional doctrine". I do not believe that to be the case. The case which I advanced is a government assurance on this measure; I have advanced it continually throughout the debate and throughout the Bill in your Lordships' House. It has also been advanced continually and consistently in another place and I do not believe that it involves or brings into being a novel constitutional doctrine. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that is so far as we can go, from our point of view, on the assurances we have given in this case.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to "well-thumbed … copies" of Hansard, thumbed by people who read our speeches over and over. I fear that is not the reality. People go to the Act. They expect to see what the situation is. They do not even find the small print. It is not a question of their failing to look for it; they will find no small print that says: "Refer to the Official Report for 22nd February, and readers will find unequivocal assurances as to the application by the Government of the provision in Clause 3 of the Act". That will not be there.
I had hoped that we would hear some new arguments or even some arguments. We are deprived of any logic as to why the amendment which I arid the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, seek should not be implemented. I believe I understand the political realities; I am sad about them. Every effort has been made to ensure that the right thing is done. So far as I am concerned, this is not a matter of playing politics; it is a matter of getting the right outcome. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.3 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say,"Content"; to the contrary,"Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is unusual to speak during a Division. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to do so. The door leading to the Content Lobby is apparently jammed. Therefore, those who wish to vote Content have had to go out of the House and back into the Lobby. As I understand it. that is not consistent with the procedures of your Lordships' House. In addition, at the point when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor got up the second time the appropriate door should have been locked. Therefore, the Tellers were unable to get into the House in the proper manner. They had to go out of the House and back into it past the normal door. I believe that your Lordships should give consideration to the question whether this Division has been handled in a proper manner, and whether further action should be taken.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that we should divide again.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I do not believe that I am able to make any constructive suggestion to your Lordships. I very much regret that the normal procedure has not happened. What I am not sure about is whether or not in practice it has inconvenienced anybody to the point where the vote is sufficiently in error that other measures should be considered. However, as the vote has been completed, we should perhaps know what the result is and decide what to do.
The Lord Chancellor: There have voted: Contents,31; Not-Contents 73. The Not-Contents have it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I believe that this vote is technically invalid. However, given the fact that we are at a late stage in the evening and there is more business for your Lordships to do, we on the Opposition Benches do not wish to have the vote taken again and the door unjammed. However, I very much hope that arrangements will be made so that in future we can vote normally according to the proper procedures of the House.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I do not know that I can agree with my noble friend that the vote is technically
588
invalid. We ought to be able to vote in a proper way. Since it was not possible to vote in the proper way, the vote was valid.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I understand that the House is sovereign in its own procedure. There is no bad faith on anybody's part. It is for the convenience of the House that we choose to validate the Division. I therefore second the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, particularly to the two noble Lords who think that the best way forward is as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I very much regret that the arrangements did not work properly. I believe that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is the right one and certainly has my support. However, I will have discussions with those who are responsible for locks and keys to make sure that this does not happen again. I will discuss it with the usual channels to make sure that if the House ought to consider the matter again it will do so. But I would have thought that we ought to accept the Division as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I should put the Question in the form in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has proposed it; namely, that despite difficulties at the entrance to the Content Lobby, the House should hold valid the result of the Division.
Amendment negatived.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
For a small Bill which was intended to give nothing but good news to businesses, this measure has received a rather more turbulent ride through both Houses than expected. Your Lordships may recall that the two previous Bills on the transitional arrangements— the big brothers of the measures now before the House— were by comparison very well received.
In fairness, I must accept that this Bill goes further than the previous two by looking forward to the transitional arrangements that may be needed for 1995– 96 onwards. As we have told your Lordships, we shall be looking at the need for such arrangements once we have firm indications of the effects of the revaluation from the Valuation Office Agency in the spring. We are already having preliminary discussions with local authority and business representatives about the likely outcome. We have also had some interesting debates on the question of the targeting of any such arrangements. Although our aim must be to keep any arrangements easy to understand and administer, we shall certainly take the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, into account in our deliberations.
We expect to consult formally on our proposals in the summer. Any new arrangements will require the approval of both Houses, and the necessary regulations will have to come into force by 1st January next year. The House will therefore have an early opportunity to consider this matter again. Meanwhile, this Bill will

589
reduce the rate bills of businesses who will otherwise be facing increases of up to 20 per cent. in real terms in 1994– 95. It will provide relief for around 360,000 properties in England to the tune of some £ 90 million in revenue forgone. Over 80 per cent. of the beneficiaries will be small properties. Businesses in Wales will save some £ 5 million. The passage of this Bill will ensure that local authorities can take the reductions into account in their rate demands which will be going out in the next week or so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. — (The Earl of Art an.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, from this side we wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the courtesy with which he has conducted the debate throughout the proceedings, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her consistent support on behalf of local government— an honour which I believe we share— and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for the amendments that he has moved. It would have been a pleasure to have said that as a result of our deliberations it was a better Bill. Alas, we cannot do that because the Government have refused our amendments.
1 believe that all of us accept the need to offer transitional relies' to soften the major effect of revaluation on the one hand and the introduction of uniform business rates on the other. As the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said in his introduction, in our amendments we sought to do two things. First, we tried to get the Minister to accept the principle that such relief— which, after all, would amount over a three-year period to £ 2 billion of Exchequer income forgone— should not be indiscriminate and that PLCs and utilities should pay their proper share, which was the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Williams. Second, such relief should be targeted on the most necessitous— usually smaller businesses— as identified perhaps by the number of their employees, their profitability or the national insurance payments that they represented. We were pleased to see that in the course of the debate the noble Earl accepted that public assistance of this kind should go to very carefully selected, that is, targeted, recipients. We look forward in any transitional Bills to the targeting of such relief. We accept that that would have been a policy departure. It was perhaps optimistic to expect that the Government could have accepted such an amendment quite so late in the day after the Bill had been through the other place.
That was not true for the second major debate which we again explored tonight; namely, the debate associated with deficit funding— the "shall/may" issue, as it were— in which the Government had previous legislation which bound the Government to pick up any deficit funding necessary. With this Bill we now see that requirement removed; it merely becomes a power for government to pick up any deficit funding. But, says the Minister,"Don't worry. We still mean to do what was in the original legislation all along". When we asked,"Why therefore change it this time round? If you mean to continue your previous practices, why in your Bill do you announce that you are going to depart from them?", I have to say that we had no answer. When we pressed
590
the Government and asked how local authorities can enforce that undertaking, we had no answer. So in that very important respect we have a very unhappy situation in which legislation under previous Bills has been changed, even though the Minister says that the change was not necessary because he does not propose to follow it but proposes to stick to old practices. In which case, we ask: why make the change? We have had no reply.
What those debates also show is not just that relief should be targeted and that any deficit funding should be on the face of the Bill as picked up by central government; in a more profound sense, they show the nonsense of national non-domestic rates altogether. They are pulled in by central government on the basis of business, and are distributed back on a population basis. In the process therefore the link is broken between any local authority support that is given to business and the revenues that business and local authorities subsequently enjoy in their community in any direct connection. If revenue comes back on a population basis, then whatever a local authority does or does not do to support business makes not a farthing worth of difference to the revenue that it will subsequently enjoy. I profoundly believe that the Government were very unwise to break the connection between local business, the local economy, the local community and the local authority. It is a connection that any government, of whatever political persuasion, should have sought to forge, not to sunder. This Government have chosen to sunder it. We continue to see the consequences of that decision.
Business rates should be delivered and determined by an elected local authority in consultation with its business community on its assessment of the appropriate contribution that that business community should make to local needs, perhaps linked to any rise in council tax.
The debate has also shown the necessity for regular business revaluation— possibly even of rolling revaluations, if that were permitted— to avoid the massive hikes that we have seen over the past three years and which we hope can be avoided over the next revaluation. But that of course requires a rather different management of the economy— for which, I suspect, we need a rather different government.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his courtesy and for his many unequivocal assurances during the course of this Bill. The debate has had its moments, and perhaps a slightly bizarre end. But important points have been brought out in the debate over the past few days. The question of targeting was rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; as was the question of privatised industries, on which, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, continued to expound his arguments, the clearer the strength of his arguments became.
With regard to the question of the shortfall, the argument has been won. There was no supporting argument as to the Government's position. However, it would be churlish not to welcome the undertakings that have been given, or the transitional relief, which is

591
clearly so desperately needed, particularly by many small businesses which are hanging on by their finger tips.
I said earlier in the proceedings on this Bill that a tax should be fair, transparent, clear and accountable. I am sad that we have not achieved any progress towards any of those criteria during the debates on the Bill. Nevertheless, the debate has had its moments.
On Question, Bill passed.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.25 to 8.45 p.m.]

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 68.
[Amendment No.171 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): In calling Amendment No.172, I must point out that, if it were to be agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos.173 or 174.
[Amendment No.172 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.173:
Page 35, line 17, leave out ("shall be taken to") and insert ("does not").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is part of the consequence of removing questions about power to indicate the terms of contract. Amendment No.174 is consequential upon it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure that we had an opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for this series of what I feel are quite important concessions. The abdication of the powers which were taken in the Bill for control over the renewal of the contract and re-engagement under a new contract is significant. We are grateful to the Government for taking account of the opinions expressed at Second Redding of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. The primary idea was to have power in the Lord Chancellor to prescribe terms of appointment. It was made clear that those would include fixed term appointments. Considering all that was said about the matter, it is important that the idea of fixed term contracts was not put on the face of the Bill. I intended to leave that for consideration if the powers were given. But, in the light of all the circumstances, I concluded that it was an unnecessary irritant in the system. I am grateful for all that was said about it.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said, perceptions are quite important in this area. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. Certainly I consider it to be an important result of listening to what was said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take it that in moving Amendment No.173 the noble and learned Lord also
592
speaks to the other amendments in the group which affect the powers of the Lord Chancellor's Department over the contracts not only for chief justices' clerks, or whatever they may finally be called, but also for justices' clerks. It should be put on the record that it is not only an important issue but welcome to those of us who have expressed views on this matter before.
The Lord Chancellor: I confirm that this applies to the head of service (to use a neutral expression) and to the justices' clerks. It applies to all those. It was the Lord Chancellor who would have had the powers and I am persuaded that it is wise not to insist on my having them.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.174:
Page 35, leave out lines 21 to 24.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos.175 and 176 not moved.]
[Amendment No.177 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No.178 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 68 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: I am down to oppose Clause 68, and although the Committee is sparse, I should like to make a few remarks on the matter. Clauses 68,69 and 70 are all clauses which I feel should not be in the Bill. In view of the discussions we have had, however, I shall not prolong the proceedings. Observing what my noble and learned friend has said in the earlier debates, the Justices' Clerks' Society very firmly supported me in opposing the total concept which those three clauses represent. I have to say that I think it would be very much better for the Bill if they were not there, partly on the grounds that they are not necessary but, more especially, because I have great faith in and have seen to operate satisfactorily over more than 14 years the 1979 Act. I said earlier to my noble and learned friend, and I suggest it again now, that in relation to these particular points the 1979 Act provides all that he could ask for quite satisfactorily and there is really no need at all for these clauses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to take advantage of the Question that Clause 68 stand part of the Bill to express my regret that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, did not move his Amendment No.171. I thought that that amendment was of considerable importance and value.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I was not aware that Amendment No.171 had been called.
Lord Mottistone: That was a long time ago: this is Committee stage and you cannot go back. It is too late.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I will just put down a marker, if I may— or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wishes to do so?
Lord Peyton, of Yeovil: I very much regret my omission. It was because of confusion with the numbers that I failed to move the amendment. I fully appreciate its importance and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for jogging my arm on this. I shall certainly want to go back to it on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful for that. It encourage me to think that we will go back to it on Report. This is the issue of the role of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department in the appointment of a chief justices' clerk, or whatever the post might finally be called. Subsection (2) of Section 24D which appears in Clause 68 provides that the magistrates' courts committee has to submit to the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the regulations an application for approval of one or more persons offering themselves for appointment. The Lord Chancellor has to approve one or more of those persons and note that it could be just one of those persons; and that the person appointed is a person so approved. It is all in Clause 68 and so it is entire? y proper for me to refer to it during discussion on the Question that the clause stand part.
This seems to us a gross intrusion of the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of what is after all a head of paid service, and largely an administrative post. I hope that as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor considers his position and takes part in any further discussion that may take place, following the debate that took place on Amendment No.170, he will also consider that his own rethinking should take into account Amendment No.171 and the other amendments in the same group, even though they were not moved.
It is an important part of our case about magistrates' clerks and heads paid service that there should not be this degree of interference or involvement, to put it in a neutral way, by the Lord Chancellor and his department in the appointment of any of these people. Having put on the record out support for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in regard to the amendment which was on the Marshalled List, I hope that we may have confirmation that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be considering these matters as well.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should just like to add a few more words to clarify that point. As the Bill stands at the moment, there is a requirement for an application to go forward to the Lord Chancellor, containing the name or names for approval. The effect of my amendment would be that there would be forwarded to the Lord Chancellor the name of the person whom the magistrates wished to appoint. That appointment would then be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. I am so sorry that my omission at that particular moment has meant that I did not take the opportunity to say how important I thought this aspect was.
The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to have the chance to discuss this matter, because it is of some importance. As I understand my noble friend, he agrees that it is right that the Lord Chancellor should approve the appointment of the head of service. The position — and I think that this is true in relation to all those in the service, but I am always. subject to correction in
594
these matters— is that the head of service would be consented to by the Lord Chancellor. The question is: should a shortlist be put for his approval or should there be only the one person?
My intention in the Bill is to allow the magistrates' courts committee to choose whether they want to put up a list, in which case I would indicate in advance, or whether they want to put up the one person, in which case I would have the choice of yes or no to that one person. I think that there are advantages in giving an option to the committee but I am not sure that this particular point is very important: at least, it is not from my point of view. Although I would be pretty well content either way, I thought on the whole that giving the option to the committee gave them greater freedom as regards how they went about their task.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The issue is affected by what conclusion we finally come to on the substance of Clause 68. If we finally agree at a later stage in our consideration of this Bill that the head of paid service, to adopt the neutral form of words suggested by the noble and learned Lord— perhaps we should end up with that— should have an administrative role rather than a judicial role and that he should have no part in the relationships between the justices' clerks and lay magistrates, which is what we would hope to be the outcome of any further consideration, then it seems odd that the Lord Chancellor should seek to have any influence whatever over the appointment of a head of paid service.
I should like to put down another marker. We may consider putting down amendments which would remove the Lord Chancellor's role altogether; indeed go further than the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: The theme which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been promoting does not accord with my understanding of the situation. The concept of having the chief justices' clerk is what is now abhorrent to the Justices' Clerks' Society. The society wholly supports the removal of Clauses 68,69 and 70. Together with the Standing Conference of Clerks to Magistrates' Courts Committees it has undertaken a costing exercise. I know that my noble and learned friend says that the system works well in London, but I am talking about the rest of the country. The cost of the exercise will be very much higher than has been forecast by my noble and learned friend's department; something in the order of £ 6 million rather than £ 3 million. I think that there is more to this than trying to make sure that the individual who occupies the post, if it ever happens, should be concerned with the law, or with administration, but not with both. I cannot agree with that because, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, in our magistrates' courts committee we have the two together and we will hope to retain it that way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord will permit me, nothing that we have said in discussion of previous amendments would prohibit the Isle of Wight magistrates' courts committee from appointing a

595
qualified person— a former justices' clerk— as head of paid service. We are not seeking to prohibit. What we are seeking to do is to remove it as a requirement as it may not be as appropriate in other areas of the country.
Lord Mottistone: Very well. The fact is that in my eyes and those of the Justices' Clerks' Society the better solution to this problem is to remove these clauses altogether.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Appointment and removal of justices' clerks]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No.179 I have to say that, if it were to be agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos.180 or 181. I call Amendment No.179.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.179:
Page 36, leave out lines 25 to 42 and insert:
("() A person may not be appointed as a justices' clerk unless the magistrates' courts committee has submitted to the Lord Chancellor an application for approval of the person whom the magistrates' courts committee proposes to appoint and the Lord Chancellor has approved the appointment of that person.").
The noble Lord said: I think it unnecessary to repeat myself but what has been said already about Amendment No.171, which is concerned with the appointment of chief justices' clerks, applies equally here, where we are concerned with the appointment of justices' clerks. The amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No.179 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.180 and 181:
Page 36, line 36, leave out ("shall be taken to") and insert ("does not").
Page 36, leave out lines 39 to 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
[Amendment No.182 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.183:
Page 37, line 12, leave out ("except in a case falling within subsection (3) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.184:
Page 37, line 27, at end insert:
("(9) The Lord Chancellor shall publish the criteria for approval of any justices' clerk and give reasons to the committee and to the candidate for any refusal to approve.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. It requires that the Lord Chancellor shall publish the criteria for approval of any justices' clerk and give reasons to the committee and to the candidate for any refusal to approve. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already published in answer to consultation the areas in which the criteria fall; the subject matters of the criteria. It is a good deal more difficult to specify actual criteria. One never knows who may come along. It is very difficult to anticipate all the possible doubts that there might be
596
about a person. I have no difficulty whatever in giving reasons. I have already said that I would give reasons for refusal in any case where there was refusal.
As the Committee knows, the Secretary of State, and since 1st April 1992 the Lord Chancellor, has had the question of approval of justices' clerks before him. So far as I know — certainly within living memory— there has never been a refusal, which just shows how competent the service is. On the other hand, I think that the justices' clerks have felt that it is quite good to have the approval now of the Lord Chancellor. I would certainly give reasons for refusal but I think it more difficult to publish criteria in advance. I doubt whether they would add anything except some of the circulars of the kind to which my noble friend referred.
I hope my noble friend will accept that I am perfectly content that it should be specified that I would give reasons for any refusal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord decides what to do about his amendment, at the risk of disloyalty I should say that I find myself in opposition both to the amendment and to the Government's answer. I do not think it is right that the Lord Chancellor should have to publish his criteria for approval of any justices' clerk. My experience of such criteria being published by government departments is not very happy.
Earlier on in the consideration of the Bill we looked at the criteria which were published in Written Answers by Ministers for the people whom it was hoped by the Government would be appointed to police authorities. They were not only most intrusive but extremely misconceived. I suspect that the same might be true of any criteria published. In the wider sense I do not like the amendment because I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor should have any say in the appointment of justices' clerks. It is a very personal relationship between them and the magistrates. I would rather not have a halfway house amendment of this kind; I would rather see the involvement of the Lord Chancellor and his department taken out altogether.
The Lord Chancellor: This arrangement has worked extremely well since 1979 so far as approvals are concerned. I believe that it gives certain support to the justices' clerk in his or her function. I certainly understood that the service as a whole in the alternative framework and all the bodies which are part of that agreement, wanted this.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I make it clear that I do not represent the service as a whole, but myself. If on occasion I agree with the Justices' Clerks' Society or the Magistrates' Association, that is my good fortune. But on the whole I am putting the position of myself and my party and not of any outside organisation.
The Lord Chancellor: I entirely understand that. It is just a comfort to me that while I may have the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, against me on this particular occasion, I have the service's support.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In view of the fact that I seem to have detected a notable lack of enthusiasm for

597
this amendment on both Front Benches, the best thing I can do is to beg leave to withdraw it and give it a decent burial.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 [Contracts of service of chief justices' clerks and justices' clerks]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.185:
Page 37, line 30, after second ("clerk") insert:
("(a) shall be employed by the magistrates' courts committee, on such terms as they may determine, and (b)")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the amendment taking out the powers of the Lord Chancellor in this connection. I do not need to explain that further. Amendment No.186 is to the same effect. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend very much for this amendment and the others with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is very modest. I do not believe the occasion should pass without expressing our thanks to him for this very significant and worthwhile change to the Bill. It ensures that the clerks are appointed by the magistrates' courts committee and that the terms are laid down by it rather than determined centrally. I hope that this is another example of the Lord Chancellor's flexibility and consideration in dealing with this part of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for what has been said on this matter. I hope it demonstrates that I am anxious to get the Lest possible structure for this service which will last as long at least as the 1949 Act.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No.186 has been spoken to. In calling it I have to point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call the next three amendments standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.186:
Page 37, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 46 and insert:
("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not").
The noble and learned Lord said: Since my noble and learned friend's amendment will be knocked out technically by this amendment, I wish to say a word about his Amendment No.189. So far as I am concerned, I would wish that to be the effect— in other words, nothing can be proposed by contract which conflicts with the provisions of Section 71. I had the impression that that probably was implied because Section 71 is part if the Bill under which this contract will be placed. But if my noble and learned friend feels that that is not necessarily so, an amendment on the lines that he has proposed in Amendment No.189 is perfectly acceptable to me. I would not wish any contract or any relationship of any sort set up under the Bill to conflict with the provisions of Section 71, which I regard as having considerable importance.
Lord Ackner: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for his kind concession. We would like the matter spelt out. It is much better to have the provision on the record and that is why we suggested it. I gratefully accept the suggestion that the matter can be incorporated by my noble and learned friend in some way or other.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I advise the Committee that I cannot now call Amendments Nos.187,188 and 189.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.190 to 192:
Page 38, line 3, after ("he") insert ("(a)").
Page 38, line 5, leave out from ("area") to end of line 9 and insert ("and
(b) has not entered into a contract of service after the commencement of this section.").
Page 38, line 10, leave out ("subsections (1) to (4) above do") and insert ("by virtue of subsection (2) above, subsection (1) above does").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and, with the leave of the Committee, I ask that they be approved together. I beg to move.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 71 [Independence of chief justices' clerk, justices' clerk and staff in relation to legal functions]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.193:
Page 38, line 15, leave out from ("exercising") to ("or'') in line 16 and insert ("responsibilities conferred by primary or secondary legislation").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that I would move this amendment and speak to the others in the group. The amendments are simple and seek to ensure that the provisions cover all the appropriate responsibilities of justices' clerk since not all the functions are contained in subsection (2): for instance, rules have been made relating to legal aid which would not be covered by the current position. The provisions would also preserve the necessary independence of the justices' clerks at, for example, training exercises or Bench meetings. They also make provision for additional responsibilities which the justices' clerks may from time to time be required to exercise under future legislation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two things to be said about this group of amendments. First, I think it necessary to repeat the warnings that were made on Second Reading about the necessity for having Clause 71 at all. If it is necessary to put on the face of statutes statements about the independence of the chief justices' clerk, justices' clerk and staff in relation to legal functions, there must be some reason for it. In other words, there must be some threat to that independence, which had always been taken for' granted without statutory reference. To that extent, there is a substantial argument for removing the clause altogether.

599
Secondly, our attitude to these amendments and to some of the other detail of Clause 71 depends on what conclusion is finally reached as a result of the reconsideration which the Lord Chancellor is to give to Clauses 68 and 69. I have to say that, unless there is a substantial change to Clauses 68 and 69, it may well be that on Report we shall want to return to Clause 71 in perhaps a more aggressive manner.
Lord Mottistone: I support a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just said. It is unfortunate that we have to have this provision. It is interesting that the Justices' Clerks' Society feels that it is necessary. That was the point that the noble Lord made. This whole pattern appears to me to be threatening, involving greater control from the centre, whatever my noble and learned friend may say. We are all trying to ensure that something does not slip through the net which makes it difficult for the clerks to be truly independent in giving their legal advice to the magistrates whom they serve. I think that it is a great pity that we have to have this clause. I know that my noble and learned friend included it in the Bill to reassure people but, in a sense, the fact that he did that makes me think that perhaps he too sees that there is a danger that the Bill may have the reverse effect to what, I am sure, he would like to happen. The whole thing is pretty nasty. Of course I support my noble and learned friend in his amendments but I shall watch carefully what happens as the Bill progresses.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not certain whether that is intended as threatening. It is difficult to win; I am asked to include in the Bill provisions securing judicial independence and when I put them in' it is seen as a threat. There are two points, one of which was adverted to by Ian Fowler in the letter which I read earlier. One must be careful about the way in which these matter interact. In Clause 71 I have tried to define in terms which are consistent with the remit given to the Home Affairs Select Committee and also with that given to the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the Courts and Legal Services Act in relation to the examination of courts. It is right that we have a provision on the lines of Clause 71
As regards this amendment, it is open to question whether there are any responsibilities that are not conferred either expressly or impliedly by primary or secondary legislation. Certainly, issues such as responsibility for accounting for fines and so forth is subject to both primary and secondary legislation. The phrase is much too broad for the effect which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and my noble friend Lord Mottistone are seeking.
Obviously, the matter depends to some extent on how one ultimately resolves the problems arising from the amendments to Clause 68. I submit that the phrase
"responsibilities conferred by primary or secondary legislation"
includes more than could reasonably be the subject of exclusion under Clause 71.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, I would like to know to what extent it goes beyond what is reasonable. I understand the allegation, but I would like it particularised if possible.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall give some instances. First, it is arguable that it applies to all the functions of these officers because they are a creation of statute. I believe that all their functions are conferred expressly or impliedly by or under primary or secondary legislation. Therefore, it includes all the functions. I understood that my noble and learned friend would allow direction in relation to issues such as accounting and so forth. That is the difficulty about the boundary that he proposes. I submit that his proposal incorporates the whole of the activities of these officers.
Lord Ackner: Again before my noble and learned friend sits down, will he say whether if mine is too wide his is not too narrow? I gave two examples; the first related to the rules concerning legal aid and the second to training exercises. They are clearly matters which could affect the independence and the way in which the clerk carries out his quasi-judicial activities and therefore they should be covered. If my noble and learned friend believes that they are covered by the provisions as they stand I should be grateful if he would spell out how.
The Lord Chancellor: The functions specified in relation to training exercises are difficult to deal with. The question of what is proper training is ultimately a matter on which the magistrates' courts committee has the statutory responsibility. One of the functions of the officer concerned, whatever he be called— the paid head of service— is, according to the arrangements proposed by the agreement in the service, the organisation of the training. Therefore, I should have thought that directions in relation to training were properly the subject of management instruction.
The functions which are conferred with regard to legal aid are conferred under the legal aid statutes. I believe that those are part of the arrangements under which the clerk to the justices acts under those statutes. A problem there is the extent to which legal aid is a matter of judicial or quasi-judicial function. Some but not all aspects of legal aid functions are of a quasi-judicial character. If the matter requires to be adjusted, I think it right to adjust it by dealing expressly with those matters.
There is a problem with regard to legal aid which has considerable ramifications. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred earlier to the question of circulars. It is not necessary to go into the detail of that but I set up a working party, including justices' clerks, to consider how those matters are put in practice. We were trying to arrange a situation in which the accounts of the Legal Aid Fund would be approved by the National Audit Office. My problem is that, unless I can make an arrangement under which the Comptroller and Auditor General is prepared to approve the accounts, I must make different arrangements for granting legal aid from

601
those which exist at present. Therefore, that is a difficult area. If it is right that legal aid should be dealt with, I should prefer to do that expressly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not stray into the area of legal aid. I wish to make two comments about the previous remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As regards the necessity for the clause, the whole clause is peculiarly and almost, it seems, deliberately opaque as it is drafted. It states that all the functions referred to in subsection (1) of the new Section 30A of the 1979 Act,
"are functions conferred by rules made in accordance with section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by virtue of section 28(1) … of this Act".
That means that it is a moving target and the rules can be changed. It may seem all very well to provide independence at those three different levels from employers for the start of the magistrates' courts committees and the justices' clerks but, if that independence is restricted to functions which are referred to in rules which may be changed and which are not in primary legislation, that is not very good protection.
My second comment about the clause and the amendment is that the way in which the clause is drafted confirms the worst of our fears about Clauses 68 and 69. It refers to giving advice to justices of the peace in an individual case. It includes the possibility of a chief justices' clerk giving advice to justices of the peace in relation to an individual case because it then excludes such advice from the direction of the magistrates' courts committee or any other person.
It is the possibility of the chief justices' clerk, with his special links with the Lord Chancellor and his department, having any say in advice to magistrates in an individual case chat is our fundamental objection to that part of the Bill. The fact that that is contained in Clause 71 confirms our worst fears about it.
Finally, in the noble and learned Lord's first intervention on this group of amendments, he said that he had been asked to include provisions for independence. He was not asked to do that. What he was asked to do was to make sure that there are no threats to independence anywhere in the Bill, either in the Bill as drafted or in further amendments. What we are looking for is not general statements of independence but no provision which would be a threat to that independence. That is much more important than a general statement of independence as provided in Clause 71.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: First, I wish to answer the cri de coeur of my noble and learned friend that he cannot win. The answer to that is that he cannot win if he starts by putting in a clause which is generally considered— certainly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice— to be a threat to independence. I refer to Clauses 68 and 69. What he has done is to threaten independence with those clauses and then he has sought to produce a magic wand in Clause 71 and say that the threat has disappeared. On the basis that the magic wand must be there, we want to make sure that it is an effective magic wand.
602
My noble and learned friend says that he thinks that the training exercises are a management activity. I would have thought that it is just the situation where the young, innocent lay justice can be persuaded not to grant adjournments because that adds to expense; not to exercise his discretion by proceeding to trial rather than seeking by a plea bargain or by a discount to get pleas of guilty; not to grant legal aid without careful inquiries, and so on and so forth. What my noble and learned friend overlooks is the threat to the exercise by the justices of their discretionary powers. This is where the training exercise can be so relevant. One knows whether one is training a human being or an animal. One hopes that they will operate according to the way in which one has brought them up. It is the way in which the justices' chief clerk, as I propose to call him for the moment, trains his magistrates, having received instructions from on high that this is following the best managerial skills — which is apparently the leitmotif now of how justice should be administered.
I shall, of course, bear in mind my noble and learned friend's observations. This is not the time to divide the Committee. I shall certainly return to the matter because it is of vital importance to define the limit of the protection which is provided. This is a good indication that Clause 68 must be effectively dealt with if this is the limit of the protection against that clause 'which my noble and learned friend is prepared to grant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.194 and 195 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): In calling Amendment No.196, 1 must point out that if it were agreed to I could not call either of the next two amendments. I now call Amendment No.196.
[Amendment No.196 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.197:
Page 38, line 26, leave out from ("chief') to end of line 27 and insert ("executive (unless acting as a justices' clerk)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment must await the outcome of Clause 68. Therefore I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No.197 not moved.]
[Amendment No.198 not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Organisation of justices' clerks in inner London area]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.199 to 201:
Page 39, line 12, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 14. Page 39, line 15, leave out ("that") and insert ("the 1979"). Page 39, leave out lines 24 to 36 and insert:
("() Any person to whom subsection (2) or (3) above applies shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment or, if he has entered into a contract of service (whether before or after the commencement of subsection (1) above), in accordance with the terms of his contract of service.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos.199 to 201 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments with Amendment No.185.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Administrative and financial arrangements for magistrates' courts]:
[Amendment No.201A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.202:
Page 42, line 27, leave out ("district") and insert ("county").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. It corrects an error in the description of "unitary authority". I beg to move.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Inspectors of the magistrates' courts service]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.203:
Page 44, line 9, at end insert:
("() The members of the Inspectorate referred to in subsection (1) above shall include one third serving or recently retired magistrates on the supplementary list, one third serving or recently retired justices' clerks and one third persons selected by the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble Lord said: We now move on to the inspectorate, which I have welcomed. My first reaction to the Le Vay Report was that it would not have been necessary had there been an inspectorate. I wrote to the then Home Secretary and suggested that this was the best solution that should come out of it. To my mind this is the only clause in the whole Bill which is worth having.
The way in which the inspectorate is created is very important. Many Members of the Committee have not had experience of being inspected. The last eminent naval officer to inspect me some 30 years ago when I commanded a ship was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. The important point about the noble and gallant Lord and his team who conducted the inspection was that they had all done what we had done at some stage in their naval careers and they all knew what we were trying to achieve and what we ought to be trying to achieve. They were all in a position to criticise us if we did not achieve it properly. I have to say in passing — although the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, is not with us this evening and I would not expect him to be present at this time of night on such a Bill— that the inspection was conducted with great skill and we learnt a great deal from it. However, it would not have been successful if it had been conducted by a crowd of management consultants and perhaps an official or two from the government department who had never done the job.
I am not prepared to go to the stake on the numbers I have suggested since in that sense the amendment is a probing amendment. However, I believe that it is very important that more than half of the members of the inspectorate which my noble and learned friend sets up should have experience of the running of magistrates' courts, whether that be as clerks or as magistrates. To have a whole lot of experts from other fields is not the answer. It is very important to get the matter right now.
604
I think that I understand why my noble and learned friend has picked up the baton and set up his inspectorate before the Bill authorised him to do so. I do not argue that he had every right to do so.
It is a pity that we could not have discussed the matter with him before he did so. The inspectorate consists of many people who I believe are totally unsuitable. If my noble and learned friend has hired those people, it is difficult to get rid of them simply because he agrees with me, as I hope that he does. However, I must impress upon my noble and learned friend that there are few people who have had experience of what I call first class inspection. The system has been established over many centuries in order to make sure that operational people such as magistrates and their clerks are properly inspected by people who have had such operational experience. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give me some encouraging remarks on the amendment. It is a probing amendment.
I have learned one thing about magistrates which makes them different from many others in public appointments. They have much experience. Some of my magistrates who are still quite young have more experience than Members of another place. They have more experience than most councillors in local government. They know what they are at. The same factor applies to their clerks. The organisation needs to have an inspectorate which it respects. If my noble and learned friend has an inspectorate which the magistrates and their clerks respect, many of the worries which may have led my noble and learned friend to produce his parts of the Bill will fall away. I have sought to say that at different times as we have progressed. A good inspectorate involving people who understand the job at once earns the respect of the people which it is inspecting. Such an inspectorate would overcome the problems that we have been considering over the past few days. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I listened with great interest to the noble Lord. I agree with what he said, especially about his experience of when he was inspected. It was important that the inspectors were people of whom he could say,"They have done what we are doing". Without such experience, one simply cannot judge performance.
I speak as a representative of the profession which was selected as a guinea pig for the first subjection to this bureaucratic culture that we now discuss. From experience, some of it bitter, I can confirm that the noble Lord is absolutely right. Inspection must be done by people who understand what is being inspected. Otherwise the inspectors will require people to do what they themselves could not possibly have done, or require those people to do tasks which would harm the performance of their job. That is what the noble Lord fears. He is right to fear it.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for the welcome that my noble friend Lord Mottistone gives to the idea of the inspectorate, which he originally proposed. The essential character of the inspectorate is that its report will be published. I regard it as important that the inspectorate should be independent of the service that it

605
inspects. Therefore, to have an inspectorate which is too dependent on the service that is being inspected would damage the credibility of the inspectorate for the public to whom, through Parliament and myself, the inspectorate will report.
The intention which I made clear from the early days was that recruitment to the inspectorate should be by open competition and successful candidates should be appointed on their merits as people able to provide a high standard. It happens that in the inspectorate we have a senior inspector who was a deputy clerk and a magistrate who was formerly a member of Her Majesty's courts' committee and two former magistrates. So in the inspectorate there is a group of people who have been in the service, but there are also people who have not.
One of the systems which I believe the chief inspector will seek to use is to show the draft report on any committee to that committee before finalising it so that a full account of the inspectors' view of the committee and its work will be available to the committee for comment before the report is finalised. I think that may be a feature of the kind of inspection to which my noble friend referred which may not at that time have in any way been in use. I believe that that is a useful method of ensuring that the experience of the service and the way in which it views matter are properly considered.
I intend, in accordance with a suggestion from the chief inspector, that inspection teams should be supplemented by serving members of the service on short-term secondment. In other words, the inspectors will use people from the service to help them to make the inspections. In that way, the members of the service who wish to do that will have the advantage of seeing how other parts of the service operate. Some invitations have gone out and I believe that they have been fairly enthusiastically received.
I feel that it is right that the inspectorate should include people who have a knowledge and experience of the service, but it is also right that there should be a considerable element of people independent of the service. I believe that we have the balance about right.1 certainly hope that the 'inspectorate will demonstrate its calibre by its work.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could help us a little more. How many inspectors are there? How many of them have the background asked for in the amendment? The noble and learned Lord was helpful in saying that, as I understand it, two are former magistrates and there is one magistrate in addition. There is a senior inspector who is a former justices' clerk. However, that does not give us much indication as to the size of the inspectorate.
I have no objection in principle to having people from outside the service as members of the inspectorate. However, there have to be enough people with practical experience in order to achieve credibility. Until recently, all members of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary were former chief officers of police or the equivalent. In the case of the probation inspectorate, the
606
present chief inspector of probation is a former chief officer in inner London. That obviously gives credibility to the inspectorate. In the case of the prisons, of course, the chief inspector is a former judge and I believe I am right in saying that all the members of his team are members of the prison service who are there on a short-term basis. I understand from what the noble and learned Lord said that a number of people who are justices' clerks are working on short-term engagements with the inspectorate. That is a sensible idea.
However, perhaps I may press the Minister further on two matters. First, will there be an annual report by the chief inspector? I assume that there will be. I cannot see any reference to it in the clause, but almost certainly at this time of night I am missing an obvious reference to that appointment.
Secondly, as he may be aware, in the case of the police inspectorate a copy of the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate is available in the Printed Paper Office or the Library. Will any reports made on various magistrates' courts committees be made publicly available in the same way? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help us on the various matters that I have raised.
The Lord Chancellor: The team of inspectors is 17 in all: one chief inspector, four senior inspectors and 12 ordinary inspectors. Two of the ordinary inspectors are magistrates. Amongst the four senior inspectors, one is a former deputy clerk to magistrates and another is a magistrate. Two of those have had experience of the service. I believe that the chief inspector came with experience of inspection in the social security field. I will ascertain the exact history of the chief inspector. I have trusted to my memory. I am informed that he came from the field of further education. What better than an education inspector? The noble Earl, Lord Russell, must be happy with that.
The intention is that all reports of the chief inspector will be published. The chief inspector will wish to make sure that all that the inspection team does is made public so that your Lordships and all those who are interested will have a chance to see what it has done. As a preliminary to that I regard it as important that those who are inspected should have a chance to see what is being said about them before the report is finalised; otherwise, published reports may not be a good way forward.
I hope that what I have said is reassuring. I know that the police inspectorate was at one time composed entirely of chief officers and that that induced in the public mind some doubt about the independence of that body. I have been prepared to take as many people from the service as may have applied, within reason. We have secured the services of those people by open competition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether there is to be an annual report by the chief inspector published in the same way as the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.
The Lord Chancellor: Every report will be published. She will also publish an annual report. The first report is well on the way to preparation.
In view of the fact that comment was made on this matter earlier, I should say that the ordinary responsibilities that I have enable me to appoint inspectorates without parliamentary authority. If they are to have statutory powers the authority of Parliament is required. Having regard to the welcome that was expressed to the idea, I thought it right to put that in place as soon as possible so that I might have the benefit of inspections in taking forward the other matters about which we spoke earlier tonight.
Lord Monkswell: I am sure that all sides of the Committee recognise the importance of the new inspection regime. However, I believe that the Committee will also recognise the importance of the contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both of which have stressed the importance of inspection as peer group review, if I may so describe it. Effectively, the people doing the inspection should be of the same profession and have experience of the organisation that is being inspected.
With regard to magistrates' courts, there are three separate professional aspects. One is the lay magistracy. One is the justices' clerks. The third could be described as the administration of the system. From the information that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already provided, we can see that the inspectorate includes expertise in those three areas. The question that I have for the noble and learned Lord is: will there be a range of different types of inspection of local magistrates' courts areas? There may, for example, be a need to look at the administrative arrangements within a magistrates' courts committee area; there may be a need for an expert in managerial efficiency; there may be a need to look at the arrangements in respect of justices' clerks, in which case an expert and a peer of the justices' clerks would be expected to be involved; and so on, to the magistrates themselves. The question is: does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor envisage a system of different types of inspection; or does he envisage a complete inspection which would involve at least three members of the inspectorate with those different areas of professional expertise doing the inspections in the round, as it were?
The Lord Chancellor: I think it would be right to leave to the discretion of the chief inspector precisely how the inspection is arranged. I have no doubt that it will be necessary to examine all aspects of the organisation of magistrates' courts as part of the inspection. The remit is given in the clause. I envisage that will be done in a number of different ways according to how the particular inspection is organised. It is possible to look at particular aspects of a particular magistrates' courts committee area; and if, for example, that were done across the country, that would be a possible subject for inspection. I think it more likely that inspectors will wish to carry out a thorough inspection of the whole organisation and administration in a
608
particular MCC area and report upon it. They have already done some experiments in trying out their methodology. I have no doubt that will be developed. If the noble Lord has any ideas about precisely how it should be done, I am sure that the chief inspector will be glad to take those into account. I envisage that precisely how it will be done may vary with experience.
To meet the noble Lord's first point, as I said, secondment of people from the service can be used to provide expertise in particular parts of the organisation that is subject to inspection.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for his answers. I am not entirely happy about the choice of the chief inspector. No doubt this chief inspector will prove herself satisfactorily. But I am afraid that somebody who is used to inspecting schools is not really what we want for inspecting experienced magistrates. She has a little battle to do. But she has been hired, and that is that.
I must emphasise that it is extremely important that the inspectorate acquires very quickly the respect of the magistrates and their clerks. He must also have the respect of their staff; but I speak particularly of the magistrates and their clerks. If my noble and learned friend detects that is not happening at a reasonable pace, for whatever reason, I hope that he will have enough knowledge and also, within the whole structure, the authority if need be to sack people or promote them in order to get the right balance.
An inspectorate is a dangerous thing if it is not respected by people of great experience, particularly when it is newly given to them. This is the most important part of the Bill. I shall not press the matter any further. The sense of what I am trying to convey has probably filtered through. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.204:
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("The Lord Chancellor") and insert ("Her Majesty the Queen").
The noble and learned Lord said: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very wisely observed in regard to the previous amendment that the inspectors should be independent of the service which they inspect. I submit that by the same token the inspectors should be independent of the Executive. Accordingly, they should not be employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department. In the same way as the chief inspector of prisons is Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, so should at least the chief inspector of magistrates' courts, whose task is an immensely important one, be quite independent and be seen to be independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
That line management structure, which is obviously designed to reduce the autonomy of the justices' clerk up to the justices' chief clerk and upwards and onwards, gives the indication that the command structure emanating down from Whitehall (or the House of Lords, where the Lord Chancellor's Department is to be found) is far too much in control of what is meant to be an

609
independent judiciary. This amendment would remove some element of that rather unsatisfactory situation. Accordingly, I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My point may sound a rather technical one. As I understand it, the other inspectors of constabulary— Her Majesty's Inspectors, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out— in fact are appointed by the Ministers concerned. So far as I remember they are not specifically mentioned as having been appointed by Her Majesty.
In this case, if Her Majesty the Queen were to be made responsible by Parliament for appointing one of the persons to be Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service, it would be on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. It seems to me that the net result would not be very different whether or not the amendment were accepted.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may reply very briefly to the noble Lord. No doubt the noble Lord is right— the noble Lord is always right. I should have thought that technically there is a difference because the particular person would not be in the employment of the Lord Chancellor's Department. That is the problem which is raised by the present situation. As I understand it, it is a section of the Lord Chancellor's Department that is involved, and that is what I seek to avoid.
The Lord Chancellor: So far as I am concerned it is a matter of considering what is best for the service. The situation is that the management of the magistrates' courts service stops at the magistrates' courts committee. The idea that there is line management from the magistrates' courts committee to the Lord Chancellor is absolutely incorrect. That was the kind of proposal that Le Vay had, and I and the Government as a whole rejected that. The responsibility for the management of the magistrates' courts service in their area stops with the magistrates' courts committee, not with the Lord Chancellor.
It is therefore a locally managed service, and I have responsibility to Parliament only in so far as there is ministerial responsibility for the policy which governs the law and the statutory framework under which the magistrates' courts service works and in the provision of the necessary tax payers' resources. This is quite different, for example, from the prison service because the prison service is the direct responsibility of the Home Secretary and he has the ultimate responsibility for management. It is true that now it is an agency, but the agency is answerable to him and he has responsibility for its management. I have, and will have, no responsibility whatever for the management of the magistrates' courts service in any area of the country.
In that situation I believe that the ordinary way of dealing with these matters is that the Minister accountable to Parliament, who does not have responsibility for management, appoints the chief inspector. The probation service is perhaps the most notable example. The other point is of course that in fact the Lord Chancellor appoints the magistrates themselves on behalf of Her Majesty. So I think it would be
610
appropriate that the chief inspector of the magistrates' courts service, which is a service to support these magistrates, should also be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Something may depend upon the total arrangements made under the Bill, but this is the basis on which the present proposals have been put forward. As I say, I think the appointment of probation inspectors is an example of the relationship between the two. I entirely accept that the magistrates' courts and the magistrates themselves are extremely important: there is no question about that. The appointment of the chief inspector is made by me, and she has direct responsibility and direct access to me. I have undertaken, as I said, that all her reports will be completely public so there can be no question, in my view, of her independence, together with that of the rest of the team, from the remainder of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Lord Ackner: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that helpful explanation. In view of the technicalities which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has so helpfully drawn to my attention, I should like to take time to consider both speeches, or interventions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Powers of inspectors]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.205:
Page 44, line 40, at end insert:
("(c) to attend any meeting of the magistrates' courts committee unless invited by the chairman, or
(d) to comment on or seek to influence the exercise of a judicial function").
The noble Lord said: The portion of Clause 79 we are referring to is a little part of the clause which says what the inspectors cannot do. I, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have had advice from the Magistrates' Association and also from the Justices' Clerks' Society on these two points. You will see that our two amendments are almost, but not quite, identical. The difference is that I do not think it is at all unsuitable for the inspectors to attend a meeting of the magistrates' courts committee, provided that they are invited by the chairman.
I have happy experiences of one of the members of my noble and learned friend's staff who asks whether he can attend meetings of the advisory committee. I am happy to invite him so to do. He has been helpful in comments that he has had to make and he has also seen us interviewing people who want to be magistrates. I am entirely happy with that arrangement. It would be very stupid of magistrates' courts committees if they were not to invite members of the inspectorate to attend their meetings, if that was convenient for them both. On the other hand, paragraph (d), which is to be found in both amendments, is part of a continuing argument that we have sought to press in many of these amendments in order to make sure that the judicial function is not in any way influenced by this outside body.

611
I suggest to the Committee, and indeed to my noble and learned friend, that there might be some use in my amendment being accepted just to strengthen this part of Clause 79. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I accept the noble Lord's advice with regard to the addition of a proviso "unless invited by the chairman". He is immensely experienced and I would not hesitate to follow his advice. I suspect that I might even, however, persuade him to follow my amendment by adding after the word "function" the word "discretion" because I think that one should take no risks in the draftsmanship to ensure the widest possible restriction on the inspector to comment on or seek to influence the exercise of the judicial function or discretion. The two may not necessarily be the same and it is in my view the judicial discretion which particularly needs safeguarding. I expect that by a little mediation we shall come quickly to the same view.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Without going over old conflicts on the Bill I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will accept, albeit with a degree of reluctance, that there has been expressed during the passage of the Bill a deep scepticism at best— suspicion at worst— about the intention of Ministers because the Bill transfers huge new powers to Ministers and their representatives.
So far as concerns this modest amendment— the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has an alternative form of words — I think that an amendment of this kind is highly desirable. I do not suggest that inspectors would try to gate-crash the meeting of a magistrates' court committee if not invited by the chairman. It is hard to believe that that situation would arise; but I think it is helpful to have it stated on the face of the Bill so that there is no conceivable misunderstanding.
There have in the past been disputes as to whether inspectors of constabulary can attend some meetings of police authorities. The issue has been raised in the past and it is probably sensible to have the matter clarified. However, the second part is even more important. I think it is highly desirable that one of the amendments — on balance I think probably the formulation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner— should be put on the face of the Bill to avoid any conceivable misunderstanding about what the role of the inspectors is to be. That would put some minds at rest, which is highly desirable in the light of the debates which have taken place today.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose and duty of the magistrates' courts service inspectorate is to inspect and report to the Lord Chancellor on the organisation and administration of magistrates' courts for each magistra-tes' courts committee area and to discharge such other functions in connection with the organisation and administration of magistrates' courts as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time direct.
The whole purpose of the inspectorate is the organisation and administration of magistrates' courts. The difficulty about part of this amendment is that if I put in something about judicial discretion, it is said that
612
I fear that, without it, the inspectorate will be interfering in judicial discretion and function. One must not forget that the whole purpose of this service is to provide a judicial function. The magistrates' courts as a whole have no other function but to provide a judicial function to the community which they serve. Everything which the organisation and administration do and all the people employed in the magistrates' courts service (about 10,000 of them) throughout the country are trying to support the judicial function. I have no doubt myself that the better the support the better is the discharge of the judicial function. Therefore, if the organisation is improved so will be the discharge of the function for which the organisation exists.
It is an extraordinary idea to set up an inspectorate for an organisation whose only function is a judicial one and to think that the activities of the inspectorate will not help to improve that function. I entirely understand, (it is well understood also by the chief inspector) that there is no question of the inspectorate commenting on particular decisions or exercises of discretion.
There are boundaries in this connection which I wish to mention. For example, one of the matters which was drawn to my attention by The Law Society when I took over responsibility for the magistrates' courts service in the ministerial sense to which I have already referred, is that it hoped that the transfer would have an effect on the wastefulness which it experienced in connection with the administration of magistrates' courts. For example, some courts— I believe that there are very few now— occasionally called everyone to attend at 10 o'clock in the morning with the result that people who were not needed until the afternoon had an unnecessarily long wait.
I suppose the time at which particular cases are to be called is a judicial function and certainly I regard priorities as between cases to be an important function of a judge to determine, if there is a dispute. But is it a judicial function to have all the cases for the day called at 10 o'clock in the morning, or is it something to which the inspectorate should not draw attention and mention as being wasteful for the public who are required to attend?
The matter is difficult. In my view— and I am sure that I speak for the chief inspector in this matter— there is no question whatever of the chief inspector or any inspector wishing to comment on decisions in particular cases. That is the way in which the remit of the Home Affairs Select Committee is defined. While I entirely endorse the principle that the inspectorate will have no power whatever to interfere with or comment on a judicial decision or the exercise of a judicial discretion understood in the way to which I have just referred as a decision in a particular case, the way in which the service is organised is intended to support the judicial function and to make the exercise of that function better than it would be if it were badly organised. Everyone also knows that, on the whole, the better it is organised the more speedy justice is likely to be, and justice delayed is justice denied. The organisation and the way in which matters are arranged have an important part to play in that aspect of the justice function.

613
As far as going to meetings is concerned, my impression is that it would be best to leave this matter as it is. My noble friend has referred to some officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department who assist me in connection with the appointment of magistrates, a function which I have held for much longer than those that are the subject of the present Bill. As I said earlier, those functions are in many ways more comfortable to hold than the ones that I have inherited since 1st April 1992. In that connection, there is no power to go to a meeting or anything of that sort. The whole business is very much a matter of kind help being offered to me by the Lords Lieutenant and the advisory committees. They regard it as useful for one of my senior officials to go with them. Occasionally, they invite me. I do not think that they regard that as too much of an imposition. When I go, I receive a warm welcome and it is always interesting to see how they perform.
I should have thought that this was something that could safely be left to the good sense of those involved. I would expect the ordinary arrangements to be that, if the chief inspector or one of the inspectors wanted to attend, they would communicate with the chairman and I would not expect them to encounter any problem. They would want to go at a convenient time. I think that it is safe to leave that aspect as it is. If your Lordships are keen to set such provisions absolutely, no doubt something along the lines of the first paragraph of the amendment would be acceptable.
However, strongly express the preference for leaving this matter alone— for leaving it to the good manners of both sides to make the necessary arrangements. I am confident that it will be so. After all, the magistrates are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the chief inspector is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. One would hope that people with such a distinguished lineage would be able to arrange whether they could meet.
Lord Ackner: My noble and learned friend is absolutely right. The whole point and purpose of the existence of the justices is to act as lay judges and to exercise the judicial function. That is essentially the sole purpose of the professional judges. No one suggests that the court administrators can tell the professional judges how to do their job and no one doubts that the efficiency of the court administrators in doing their job will support and make more efficient the judicial function. Proper lists will obviously improve the quality of the expeditious handling of cases. Proper courts with central heating that does not operate at minus 10 degrees or al.90 degrees would again assist the effective operation of the judges— and so on and so forth.
The big point here is that the court administrators know the boundaries because, if they overstep them, the judges— I am sure with great courtesy— will tell them to resume the place where they should be. The same does not apply to lay magistrates. They need protection from administrators in regard to overstepping the mark and telling them how to exercise their judicial functions and, in particular, their judicial discretion.
In view of the fact that there is no doubt about the limitations of the inspectors' functions— not the doubts
614
that were the subject matter of lengthy discussions with regard to the chief justices' clerk— I cannot see why the Lord Chancellor should object to the second paragraph of Amendment No.205 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It states the obvious. It states it in a Bill where the protection of judicial independence has been admitted by the Lord Chancellor by his bringing into force Clause 71. This is the product of his activities. In my respectful submission, he really cannot complain if one says,"You concede that that protection on the face of the Bill is proper— that is why you included it— so that protection should be extensive and adequate and should satisfy everyone else". Those are my submissions. Although I shall not move my amendment at this stage in the evening, I shall certainly return to the matter on Report, because it is fundamental.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for his remarks and I recognise the importance of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I shall certainly consider whether to come back at the next stage on either or both parts of my amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave is withdraw Amendment No.205.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.206 not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Default powers]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.207:
Page 45, line 15, at end insert:
("() The Lord Chancellor shall not make an order under subsection (2) below unless he has first issued a written warning to the committee, particularising the alleged failures, provided that he may make such an order without such prior warning if he certifies that the matter is urgent and that such a warning would be impracticable, and, in any event, the Lord Chancellor shall not make an order under subsection (2) below unless first recommended in writing to do so by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 80 gives my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor unfettered powers to remove and replace a chairman or members of a magistrates' courts committee. There is nothing within the clause to make it a duty for the Lord Chancellor to consult or to issue a warning, nor is there a right of appeal. My amendment provides an elementary safeguard both by a written warning and by the report of an inspector, which would be known to the committee.
It is strange that such provision was not made in the original drafting of the Bill, because it seems only reasonable that under the circumstances of adverse performance the chairman and members of the committee concerned should receive some kind of warning about what to expect. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Members of the Committee may know that I have been receiving double takes throughout our proceedings on the Bill. The noble and learned Lord may remember debates on a considerable number of clauses dealing with the hypothesis of financial mismanagement in an individual university. In fact, he may remember them better than I because they have given rise to many of our academic freedom debates in which he has taken part, and very helpfully on many occasions.

615
We have here exactly the same administrative thinking. We have provision for a gross default, provision for intervention and the same risk of intervention in the affairs of an individual committee as there was of intervention in the affairs of an individual university. Academic freedom is important and so is judicial freedom. Indeed, if my colleagues will forgive me for saying so, it might perhaps be regarded as more important.
In the case of universities the Government had the limited excuse that there had been a single case of financial mismanagement. I know of no such case in this respect. If there is one perhaps the noble and learned Lord will enlighten me. In its absence, I am more and more convinced that the Government have a single policy for the whole of the public services regardless of what type of service they are handling. It is a little like housing the camels, the giraffes and the polar bears in the same house in the zoo— it does not seem particularly relevant to the circumstances. If the noble and learned Lord cannot tell me of any individual case of gross mismanagement by a committee, does not that look like that Whitehall carefulness which is not merely belt and braces but, if I may so put it, pads, box and helmet?
With all due respect to some very high quality speakers, Curtley Ambrose is not opening the bowling for the magistrates. Is this provision really necessary?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I can understand the attraction of the first part of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, although I doubt whether it is necessary.
The second part of the amendment, which refers to the Lord Chancellor not making an order unless first recommended by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service, would be inappropriate. I say that because it is perfectly clear from Clause 78 that the inspectors of the magistrates' courts service are to be concerned only with organisation and administration. But Clause 80 provides that the Lord Chancellor may make an order:
"if he is of the opinion that, without reasonable excuse, a magistrates' courts committee … are failing properly to discharge any duty imposed on them by or under any enactment".
That could refer to the discharge of judicial duties; in other words, something beyond administration and organisation. Therefore, it would not be proper to make it a condition that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector should first make a recommendation.
The Lord Chancellor: I was wondering which were the giraffes and which were polar bears in the noble Earl's illustration. So far, I have not been able to answer that question to myself.
The matter at issue is the administration of a magistrates' court committee; that is, administration of the justice system. It is a question of whether it is failing properly to support the justice system and the justices in its area. There are various ways in which that could happen. That was hinted at in an amendment tabled, but not moved, by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in relation to maintenance of a court-house. If
616
the noble Lord has looked round court-houses, he may see occasionally court-houses which could be the subject of some improvement.
I do not believe that it is at all likely that those default powers will ever be necessary, and I hope and pray that certainly so long as I am Lord Chancellor, it will not be necessary to use them. On the other hand, one must remember that if the final responsibility in this matter is given to a magistrates' court committee, the administration of justice at that level is of vital importance. If it fails, something must be done about that. The system is not complete unless provision is made to remedy that situation. The proposed amendments all recognise that in some shape or form.
I have indicated already in the paper published following the consultation that such power would be exercised only as a very last resort. I hope that it would be possible to achieve the result without reaching this situation.
When one looks at my noble friend's amendment, one sees that he provides a procedure and then provides a possible exception to it. I believe that it is highly unlikely that the exception would ever be appropriate. One should know some time in advance if such a committee is failing. It is unlikely to be a sudden failure. It is not necessary in those circumstances to specify precisely what should be done. Any Lord Chancellor would be extremely reluctant to do anything along those lines. So far as I am concerned it can be left like that.
This matter is tackled in different ways in different amendments. I mink that Amendment No.208 was spoken to very generally with the earlier amendments but it may be raised again. It is another way of looking at the same matter although by a particular route. But I would hope, as I said, that this particular procedure would not be used except in the most exceptional circumstances and I would expect it to be preceded by a great number of warnings and attempts to repair matters by discussion with the committee and so on. I believe a written warning is a procedure that would be used late in the day.
I hope that my noble friend may feel it is not necessary to prescribe a detailed system with exceptions and so on, as he has done. I have no doubt at all that no action would be taken without a report from the chief inspector. I think it is not wise to require a recommendation from the chief inspector. I think the chief inspector's job would be to set out the facts of what was happening and it would be for the Lord Chancellor to conclude in the light of those facts whether or not there was a failure. I think the ultimate responsibility for that should rest with the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible to Parliament, rather than the chief inspector. Further, if this kind of decision ever came to be made, it would certainly be subject to judicial review and for my part I would think it right that that should be directed to the Lord Chancellor rather than to the chief inspector. As I have said, this matter has been fairly fully dealt with in one of the papers following consultation and I hope that, in the light of my assurances, my noble friend may feel able not to press this amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, of course one can well understand when he says that these default powers would rarely be used, but there are more limited default powers under the 1979 Act. New members can be appointed to the magistrates' courts committee by regulations under Section 21 of that Act. I have no recollection of any such regulations ever being made. Can my noble and learned friend confirm that that is the position?
The Lord Chancellor: That is the position. So far as I am aware, it has never been necessary to do this, but appropriate default powers are important. In a sense the fact that default powers are there underlines the point that the ultimate responsibility for running the magistrates' courts as a going concern rests with the local magistrates' courts committee and does not automatically go up any higher— perhaps "higher" is not the right word— or go anywhere else unless there is some breakdown which requires a special and legally prescribed basis for intervention.
Earl Russell: I heard what the noble and learned Lord said about courthouses but can he give us a guarantee that he will not mistake poverty for mismanagement?
The Lord Chancellor: I think I can distinguish between poverty and mismanagement. Sometimes poverty is given as an excuse for mismanagement. One must be astute to recognise the difference."Can't pay" and "Won't pay" are two different states of affairs. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them but it is important that the distinction be made.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for his remarks on this amendment. I shall read with care what he and other Members of the Committee have said, because I think there may be some sort of provision needed here along the lines I have suggested, although I appreciate the shortcomings of my amendment. What I should like to do at this stage of the evening, having battled away with my noble and learned friend for the whole of the past seven hours or whatever, is to say how splendidly. he has tackled us all and with such good humour. I thank him for all he has done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 80 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: I gave notice that I might oppose Clause 80 standing part of the Bill after having seen Amendment No.207, which has just been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I did so as a long stop, although with a settled, hopeless expectation that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would achieve nothing with his amendment, as has proved to be the case. That is surprising because, leaving aside the excellent technical point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the early part of the amendment is wholly reasonable. It asks that an order should not be made without a written warning particularising the failure. That has not been achieved, and that justifies my urging that Clause 80 should not stand part of the Bill.
618
The clause contains a default power which I submit is wrong in principle. It distorts the proper constitutional balance between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the magistrates' courts committees and ultimately the courts. The new magistrates' courts committees will in future be chosen for their managerial competence and will be assisted, obviously very strongly where necessary, by the inspectorate. As the past has shown, there is no need for these quasi-dictatorial powers.
At Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor emphasised that it was:
"no part of my intention to seek direct managerial control". — [Official Report, 18/1/94; col.461.]
This goes beyond managerial control.
The observations of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on the first day of the Committee stage on 15th February (at col.119 of Hansard) are mutatis mutandis very relevant. He said:
"The real trouble with these provisions is that they gather more power into the hands of the Home Secretary' —
for "Home Secretary" read "Lord Chancellor"—
"Whatever may be said and whatever the intentions are, this is a centralising Bill which strengthens Whitehall and weakens local authorities and local representation".
For that, read "local magistrates' courts".
In a short intervention earlier this evening, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, drew attention to the number of centralising measures which the Bill contains and said that we should be very wary of allowing extra powers unless they were shown to be needed. Everything I have listened to from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on this subject shows that they are not needed. Until they appear to be necessary, having regard in particular to the added strength given to the system by the new inspectorate, I submit that this is an entirely unnecessary clause and we should restrict the ever centralising moves by which the Executive creeps nearer and nearer to running the administration of justice.
The Lord Chancellor: In the next amendment my noble and learned friend proposes a new clause to deal with very much the same circumstances.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may intervene to say that I shall not move that amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: In putting down Amendment No.208 my noble and learned friend obviously had in mind that a condition such as that with which Clause 80 is concerned might arise.
Lord Ackner: I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend again. I referred to that amendment when I moved the amendments to stop the amalgamation of magistrates' courts committees. It served as a default provision in the hopes that my noble and learned friend would accept that that gave him all the additional control that was necessary and made it quite unnecessary for him to take powers to amalgamate magistrates' courts committees. That was its relevance. It has no relevance to what I have just spoken to.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend had in mind, as he says, an alternative method of introducing powers of amalgamation. However, the point I make is that he considered that that alternative

619
should be based on a failure of duty. Therefore, when he put down Amendment No.208 he had in mind the possibility of a failure of duty by a magistrates' courts committee.
In a scheme that one expects to last, it is reasonable to make provision for such failure, in the sincere hope that the provision will never be required. However, if it did occur, it would be extraordinary to have all of a sudden to obtain legislation to deal with it. One can envisage the result. In my submission, it is right to make reasonable provision for that situation in the circumstances of the Bill. It is made absolutely plain by me in my published material that the power would be exercised only after a careful attempt to prevent its necessity. Various steps can be taken in that direction. I have no difficulty about putting those measures in the Bill if it were thought helpful. I believe that it is obvious that no one would wish to get into that situation unless and until there was a distinct failure, and that one would do everything possible to prevent it. As I say, I am prepared to put such a measure into the Bill if it would help.
I believe that it is wise to have a default power. As I said earlier, the existence of the default power emphasises the finality of the responsibility of the committee. It has the responsibility for managing and organising the service in its area. It may well be that the point that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner makes would best be met by my attempting to see whether the procedures which I have outlined in the written paper which I put out in consequence of the consultation might be written into the earlier part of Clause 80.
I hark back to the point made earlier about the need for a written warning if one were to use default powers. Certainly it would be highly wise to have some such warning. However, I would hope that such a provision would be obvious. If there is any concern, there is no difficulty in making some arrangements along the lines of the first part of Amendment No.207 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, but without quite the detail.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As regards Clause 80, what precedent is there for the powers that we are being invited to grant under subsection (2)? There may be many such precedents. Offhand I cannot think of any. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will enlighten us.
The Lord Chancellor: I did not have in mind specific precedents. There are plenty of precedents for default powers. I believed that the right thing to do was to examine the particular circumstances of the service and to consider, if the organisation was failing, the likely and lightest cure that could be adopted. The chairman is obviously a key officer in that connection. It may be that substituting new people would be possible without including the chairman. The Committee will see that Clause 80 (2) (b) (ii) states that the committee:
"may include the chairman but may not consist of all the members of the committee".
620
So it is an attempt to take some members out of the committee and strengthen it by that method. The reason I have chosen this type of default power is that I believe that it is best suited to the situation we have here.
There are, I am reminded, somewhat similar powers in some other legislation. For example, in the National Health Service Act 1977, in relation to health authorities, there is a default power to appoint new members to a committee. That is just one example; but I looked at the matter from the point of view of what was most likely to be the lightest and most effective way of dealing with the matter. I believe those powers are appropriate, and I do not believe that in the circumstances of this service an amalgamation is the right way to deal with default.
Lord Ackner: It would be churlish of me at this stage in the evening even to hint that my noble and learned friend had taken a bad point in referring to my Amendment No.208. However, I certainly suggest that it is not one of his better ones.
First, Amendment No.208 is in the first grouping which was some hours ago, and it does not occur in any group to which we refer. The other point is that what I proposed in Amendment No.208 gave much stronger protection, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to say so, than the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did in his modest amendment to Clause 80. On the basis that usually my noble and learned friend accepts that the greater includes the lesser, I had assumed that my Amendment No.208 would be unlikely to find favour with him, having regard to the way he dealt with Amendment No.207.
I am delighted to find— though it may be a stage in the evening when one becomes a little light-headed— that there is a ray of hope that he may return to the wisdom suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in Amendment No.207. If that is the case, the few minutes which I have taken up may, for once, serve some useful purpose.
Clause 80 agreed to.
[Amendment No.208 not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Orders and regulations under Justices of the Peace Act 1979]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.209 and 210:
Page 46, leave out line 24.
Page 46, line 25, leave out ("22(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos.209 and 210 already and, with the Committee's leave, I move that they be agreed to en bloc.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.211:
Page 46, line 32, leave out from ("whom") to ("not") in line 33 and insert ("section 26A(I) of the 1979 Act does").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Magistrates' courts: minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.211A:
Page 73, line 18, after ("authorities)") insert ("in subsection (1B) insert after "Superannuation Act 1972" ("or under the Justices of the Peace. Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978") and").
The noble Lord said: We are getting to the minutiae now. We seek in this amendment to correct an anomaly which has existed for 15 years and which runs back 30 years further than that. The problem is who should pay for the circumstances— admittedly, one hopes, rare circumstances — when a magistrates' courts committee decides to declare a justices' clerk redundant. The situation had always been that the redundancy payments under the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 were paid for by grant rather than by the local authority. The Justices of the Peace Act 1949 was brought up to date by the compensation regulations, most recently in 1978.
When the Just. was of the Peace Act 1979 was introduced there was no specific reference to who should pay compensation for justices' clerks who were made redundant. The result was that such payments did not rank for grant and could fall on the local authority alone. The problem was that local magistrates' clerks might be influenced by the burden on the local authority in deciding whether to make a justices' clerk redundant. The quality of their personnel decision might be affected if there was a financial decision involved in it. Local authorities might not have the resources to make redundancy payments, particularly if they were in danger of being capped. Although the numbers of justices' clerks made redundant hopefully would be small, the sensible thing to do would be to make sure that redundancy payments were paid for by specific grant rather than through a levy on the local authority.
The Lord Chancellor: There has been extensive discussion between some of my officials and those in the magistrates' courts service about compensation for loss of office. As the noble Lord says, at present two forms of redundancy arrangements apply to the magistrates' courts service. First, there are payments under the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978. Secondly, there are arrangements that apply more generally across the public sector under the Local Government (Compensation for Premature Retirement) Regulations 1982. I fully agree with the noble Lord that all compensation payments should rank for grant. I plan to bring forward amendments when the Bill is next before your Lordships which will place beyond doubt that the Lord Chancellor has power to pay grant to the responsible authorities under both schemes in respect of compensation payments for loss of office. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful. That seems to be 100 per cent. satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Repeals and revocations]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No.212:
Page 47, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. Discipline regulations are normally revoked when a new set of regulations comes into effect. Revocation on the face of the Bill is therefore unnecessary, as it will be done when the new regulations are introduced. ! beg to move.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.212A:
Page 48, line 24, after ("of") insert (", together with Schedule 6 to,").
The noble Earl said: Schedule 6 to the Bill is a purely Scottish provision. This amendment ensures that it is included in the extent clause as extending only to Scotland. I beg to move.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos.213 to 216 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.216A:
Page 76, line 40, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 14(1), the words "(whether by the appointment of tempor-ary constables or other-wise)".").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.216A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.216B and 216C. These amendments add to the repeal schedule references to temporary constable and deputy chief constable repealed by Clauses 42 and 47 of the Bill. They are therefore technical amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos.216B and 216C:
Page 76, line 41, column 3, leave out ("Section 26(7)") and insert:
("In section 26, in subsection (2) (d), the words "or temporary"; and subsection (7).").
Page 76, line 42, column 3, after ("31") insert:
(", in each of subsections (2) and").
[Amendment No.217 had been renumbered 2I9A.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.218:
Page 78, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.218 I should like to speak also to Amendment No.219.
These amendments are linked to those already agreed by the Committee to Clauses 29 and 32. The first restored the reference to "disciplinary proceedings" in Section 88 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

623
1984. The second includes the list of repeals of parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The repeal of Section 97(4) was agreed when the Committee discussed Clause 32 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.219:
Page 78, line 26, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 97(4).").
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment Nos.219A to 223:
Page 78, column 3, leave out line 54 and insert:
("In section 29(1) the words ", joint magis-trates' committee or magistrates' courts committee" and the words "or committee". In section 29(3)").
Page 79, line 2, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 30(1) the words ", joint magis-trates' committee and magistrates' courts committee".").
Page 79, line 5, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 32(8).").
Page 79, line 5, column 3, at end insert:
624
("In section 36 the words ", joint magis-trates' committee or magistrates' courts committee", and the words "from a con-stituent council" in the second place where they occur.").
Page 79, line 11, column 3, at end insert:
("In the tables in Parts II to IV of Schedule 10, in column 1 the words "Joint magistra-tes' committee" and column 2.
In the table in Part V of Schedule 10, in column 1 the words "Magistrates: " onwards and column 2.
In the tables in Parts VI and VII of Schedule 10, in column 1 the words "Joint magistra-tes' committee" and column 2.").
The noble Earl said: These amendments repeal a number of provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 relating to the appointment of magistrate members of joint authorities, including police authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past 11 o'clock.

  HACKNEY: TEACHER SUSPENSIONS
  HACKNEY: TEACHER SUSPENSIONS
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: ESRC-SPONSORED RESEARCH
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: ESRC-SPONSORED RESEARCH
  INFANT MORTALITY
  INFANT MORTALITY
  BRITISH RAIL: BUY-OUT ADVICE TO STAFF
  BRITISH RAIL: BUY-OUT ADVICE TO STAFF
  HEATHROW: PROPOSED LIMITED-STOP TRAIN SERVICE
  HEATHROW: PROPOSED LIMITED-STOP TRAIN SERVICE
  COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE
  COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE
  US "REGIONAL CONTINGENCY" STRATEGY: UK COMMITMENT
  US "REGIONAL CONTINGENCY" STRATEGY: UK COMMITMENT
  KOREA: US "REGIONAL CONTINGENCY" PREPARATIONS
  KOREA: US "REGIONAL CONTINGENCY" PREPARATIONS
  MILK MARKETING BOARD PENSION SCHEMES
  MILK MARKETING BOARD PENSION SCHEMES
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE: INTERIM RESPONSE TO REPORT
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE: INTERIM RESPONSE TO REPORT
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION: APPEALS PANEL MEMBERSHIP
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION: APPEALS PANEL MEMBERSHIP